alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1998
<CASH>                                       2,119,000
<SECURITIES>                                 9,101,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,323,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    731,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            13,470,000
<PP&E>                                       2,043,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               (456,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              18,903,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          916,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        68,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  16,405,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                18,903,000
<SALES>                                      5,839,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,474,000
<CGS>                                        2,680,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,859,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               196,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,739,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   640,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,104,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,099,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .16
        

</TABLE>
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**69 KA 11-00349** 
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, DEJOSEPH, AND SCUDDER, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DAVID J. YAW, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER, TREVETT CRISTO SALZER & ANDOLINA, P.C. (ERIC M. DOLAN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (ROBERT J. SHOEMAKER OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Daniel J. Doyle, J.), rendered December 20, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of robbery in the third degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of robbery in the third degree (Penal Law § 160.05). Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime as charged to the jury ( see People v Danielson , 9 NY3d 342, 349), we reject defendant’s contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence ( see generally People v Bleakley , 69 NY2d 490, 495). It is well settled that “[g]reat deference is to be accorded to the fact[]finder’s resolution of credibility issues based upon its superior vantage point and its opportunity to view witnesses, observe demeanor and hear the testimony” ( People v Aikey , 94 AD3d 1485, 1486, lv denied 19 NY3d 956 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Gay , 105 AD3d 1427, 1428). “[A] jury’s verdict is not necessarily against the weight of the evidence merely because it accepts part of a witness’s testimony and rejects other parts” ( People v Alteri , 49 AD3d 918, 920; see People v Paulk , 107 AD3d 1413, 1414, lv denied 21 NY3d 1076, reconsideration denied 22 NY3d 1157). We perceive no reason to disturb the jury’s resolution of the credibility issues or the weight that the jury accorded to the evidence ( see Gay , 105 AD3d at 1428). Contrary to defendant’s further contention, the sentence is not unduly harsh and severe.

Entered: February 5, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23
                                                                      ----------



                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT
                         -----------------------------

Board of Directors
Iroquois Bancorp, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement Nos. 33-
36826, 33-36827, 33-36828, 33-94214 and 333-10063 on Form S-8 and No. 33-36825
on Form S-3 of Iroquois Bancorp, Inc. of our report dated January 17, 1997,
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Iroquois Bancorp, Inc. and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 1996 and 1995, and the related consolidated
statements of income, shareholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years
in the three-year period ended December 31, 1996, which report has been
incorporated by reference in the December 31, 1996 annual report on Form 10-K of
Iroquois Bancorp, Inc.

We also consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement no.
33-36828 on Form S-8 of Iroquois Bancorp, Inc. of our report dated March 14,
1997 relating to the statements of net assets available for plan benefits of the
Iroquois Bancorp, Inc. 401(k) Savings Plan as of December 31, 1996 and 1995, and
the related statements of changes in net assets available for plan benefits for
the years ended December 31, 1996 and 1995, and related schedules as of and for
the year ended December 31, 1996, which report appears in the December 31, 1996
annual report on Form 10-K of Iroquois Bancorp, Inc.




   /s/KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
-------------------------------
KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

Syracuse, New York
March 21, 1997
Placeholder for five “Laboratory Report No.” attachments to the SNAP Information Notice for PFBI, 

pertaining to Part III – Section A Toxicity and Hazard Information. Claimed as confidential business 

information (CBI).
The American Coal Ash Association 

15200 East Girard Avenue, Suite 3050 

Aurora, Colorado 80014-3955 

720 870 7897 Phone 720 870 7889 Fax 

info@acaa-usa.org www.acaa-usa.org 

Meeting Agenda 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Headquarters 

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20004 

 EPA Representatives:

Assistant Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Mathy Stanislaus 

and invited EPA staff 

July 24, 2009 

2:45 to 3:45 PM 

Washington, D.C. 

ACAA Representatives:

John Gaynor, U.S. Gypsum, Chicago, IL 

Dr. Terrence Holland, Calera Corporation, Los Gatos, CA 

Robert Spoerri, Beneficial Reuse, Chicago, IL 

Dr. Warren Dick, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 

Thomas Adams, American Coal Ash Association, Aurora, CO 

Purpose: This meeting was requested to inform the EPA of the potential impacts of 

regulation of coal combustion products as hazardous wastes on end users and their 

markets. 

2:45 Introductions 

2:50 Robert Spoerri – Beneficial Use in Geotechnical Applications 

3:00 Dr. Warren Dick – Beneficial Use in Agriculture 

3:10 John Gaynor - Beneficial Use in Wallboard 

3:20 Dr. Terrence Holland - Beneficial Use in Concrete 

3:30 Questions and Comments - all attendees 

3:45 Adjourn
United States Court of Appeals 

For the First Circuit 

No. 17-1849 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Appellee, 

v. 

ISIDRO SUAREZ-REYES, 

Defendant, Appellant. 

ERRATA SHEET 

The opinion of this Court issued on December 14, 2018, is 

amended as follows: 

On page 4, line 1, replace the year "2017" with "2018."
<PAGE>

                         DYNAMIC HEALTH PRODUCTS, INC. -
                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

                                                                    Exhibit 21.1

J.Labs, Inc., a Florida corporation

Herbal Health Products, Inc., a Florida corporation

Dynamic Life Products, Inc., a Florida corporation

Dynamic Life, Inc., a Florida corporation, and its subsidiary,
         Dynamic Life Asia, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, and its
         subsidiary, Dynamic Life Korea Ltd., a Korean corporation

Dynamic Financials Corporation, a Nevada corporation, and its subsidiary,
         Bryan Capital Limited Partnership, a Nevada limited partnership

Today's Drug, Inc., a Florida corporation
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4046-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2012-0002]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for State of Connecticut (FEMA-4046-DR), dated November 17, 2011, and related determinations.

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         February 29, 2012.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Peggy Miller, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Albert Lewis, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

This action terminates the appointment of Stephen M. DeBlasio Sr., as Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

W. Craig Fugate,

Administrator,

Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. 2012-6358 Filed 3-15-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
**Exhibit 32.2**

#### CertificationPursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asAdopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Safety Products Holdings, Inc. (the “Registrant”)on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David F. Myers, Jr., Chief FinancialOfficer of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)           TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)           Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
| Dated: August 13, 2007 | By:    | /s/ DAVID F. MYERS, JR.                            |   |
|------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                   |   | David F. Myers, Jr.                                |   |
|                   |   | Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, |   |
|                   |   | Secretary and Director                             |   |
|                   |   | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)       |   |

** **

**Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.**

 

----
#### Twanda L. KEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 87-1323.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 22, 1988.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Robert F. Moeller, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and James A. Young, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PARKER, Judge.

Key appeals from her judgment and sentences for possession of cocaine with intent to sell and sale of cocaine predicated upon a single act.1 Key challenges the convictions and sentences primarily on double jeopardy grounds, asserting that they have resulted in her receiving multiple punishments for the same offense. The precise offenses underlying Key’s convictions were recently reviewed by this court under a similar double jeopardy challenge in *Gordon v. State,*528 So.2d 910 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). In deciding this appeal, we find *Gordon*to be controlling. In *Gordon,*we held that the double jeopardy clauses of the federal and Florida constitutions prohibit punishing a defendant for the offenses of possession with intent to sell and sale of cocaine, both of which involved the same item of cocaine. *Id.*In accordance with *Gordon,*we remand the case to the trial court with instructions to vacate one of the two convictions and for a recalculation of Key’s recommended guidelines sentence absent the vacated conviction.

We further find error in the trial court’s imposition of court costs at the sentencing hearing without providing any statutory authority for the costs. *Aultman v. State,*515 So.2d 391 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). Such statutory support is also not included in the written judgment. Under these circumstances, the indigent defendant was not provided the required notice under *Jenkins v. State,*444 So.2d 947 (Fla.1984), and opportunity to be heard and object. *Ault-man.*

Lastly, as conceded by the state, the sentencing judge orally imposed a lien for attorney’s fees in the amount of $350 while the judgment reflects a $355 lien for attorney’s fees. The judgment should, therefore, be corrected to conform with the trial court’s pronouncement.

Accordingly, we remand the case to the trial court for proceedings in conformity with this opinion.

Affirmed in part; vacated in part; remanded.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and FRANK, J., concur.

1

. The factual circumstances surrounding this case involved an exchange, whereby Key transferred two pieces of rock cocaine to undercover police officers and in return received fifty dollars.
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-17-0000614 29-MAR-2018 11:26 AM
August 8, 2016

Mr. Brad Blosser

Brad Blosser

10069 County Road 16

Middlebury, IN 46540

Re: FAA–2016–3429

Dear Mr. Blosser:

This letter is to provide notification that we have reviewed your petition for exemption, and 

have determined that we will continue to process your petition. 

As referenced in the June 22, 2016, letter posted to your docket at www.regulations.gov, we 

are reviewing pending Section 333 petitions to determine if the recently-issued regulation, 

Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations, Part 107 (www.faa.gov/uas) will satisfy your request. We have determined that 

your request requires further regulatory relief (Tier 3), and we will continue working on your 

petition for exemption. 

We have found that your petition, if granted, would set a precedent. Therefore, we will 

publish a summary of your petition in the Federal Register for public comments, if we have 

not done so already.

We will advise you of the agency’s final decision on your petition as soon as possible. If you 

have any questions regarding your petition, please contact me at 333exemptions@faa.gov. 

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson

Program Analyst
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2397 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2397

   To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Chromate(2-), [2,4-
 dihydro-4-[[2-(hydroxy-kO)-4-nitrophenyl]azo-kN1]-5-methyl-3H-pyrazol-
  3-onato(2-)-kO3][3-[[4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-1-(4-methylphenyl)-5-(oxo-
 kO)-1H-pyrazol-4-yl]azo-kN1]-4-(hydroxy-kO)-5-nitrobenzenesulfonato(3-
                             )]-, disodium.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

  Mrs. Hagan introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Chromate(2-), [2,4-
 dihydro-4-[[2-(hydroxy-kO)-4-nitrophenyl]azo-kN1]-5-methyl-3H-pyrazol-
  3-onato(2-)-kO3][3-[[4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-1-(4-methylphenyl)-5-(oxo-
 kO)-1H-pyrazol-4-yl]azo-kN1]-4-(hydroxy-kO)-5-nitrobenzenesulfonato(3-
                             )]-, disodium.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. CHROMATE(2-), [2,4-DIHYDRO-4-[[2-(HYDROXY-KO)-4-
              NITROPHENYL]AZO-KN1]-5-METHYL-3H-PYRAZOL-3-ONATO(2-)-
              KO3][3-[[4,5-DIHYDRO-3-METHYL-1-(4-METHYLPHENYL)-5-(OXO-
              KO)-1H-PYRAZOL-4-YL]AZO-KN1]-4-(HYDROXY-KO)-5-
              NITROBENZENESULFONATO(3-)]-, DISODIUM.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.24.86 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to Chromate(2-), [2,4-dihydro-
4-[[2-(hydroxy-kO)-4-nitrophenyl]azo-kN1]-5-methyl-3H-pyrazol-3-
onato(2-)-kO3][3-[[4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-1-(4-methylphenyl)-5-(oxo-kO)-
1H-pyrazol-4-yl]azo-kN1]-4-(hydroxy-kO)-5-nitrobenzenesulfonato(3-)]-, 
disodium) is amended by striking ``12/31/2009'' and inserting ``12/31/
2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 7705** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. CLARENCE SHELDON JUPITER, a/k/a Star , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Harrisonburg
. Michael F. Urbanski , District Judge. ( 5:93

- cr - 00004

- MFU

- 1 ; 7:98

- cv - 00016

- MFU )

Submitted : August 20, 2015 Decided: August 24, 2015

Before DUNCAN , KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Clarence Sheldon Jupiter , Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, Assistant U nited S tates Attorney , Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not bind ing precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Clarence Sheldon Jupiter seeks to appeal the district
court ’ s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court ’ s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “ a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. ” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatabl e, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jupiter has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Jupiter’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the3 materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional proces s.

DISMISSED
#### Marcus SIMS, Sr. v. SONOCO PRODUCT COMPANY and Their Workmen’s Compensation Carrier Hartford Insurance Company.

No. 87-C-1446.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 25, 1987.

In re Sims, Marcus Sr.; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 86-CA-0465; Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court, Div. “G”, No. 303-984.

Denied.

DIXON, C.J., and DENNIS, J., would grant the writ.
#### STATE ex rel. Dennis Ray SCOTT v. 19TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT.

No. 87-KH-1739.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Aug. 5, 1987.

In re Scott, Dennis Ray; applying for remedial writs; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. KW87 0936; Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court, Div. “L”.

The relator represents that the district court has failed to act timely on a motion he has filed to amend sentence. If relator’s representation is correct, the district court is ordered to consider and act on the motion.
**EXHIBIT      32.2**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| (1)   | the                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,                and |
|-----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2)   | the                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Partnership. |
|-----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:    | /s/                Matthew A. Jones                                    |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Name:  | Matthew                A. Jones                                        |
| Title: | Chief                Financial Officer of the Managing General Partner |
| Date:  | August                14, 2007                                         |