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

<ARTICLE> 9
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                           7,971
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                              93
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                   532
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     32,145
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           3,444
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             3,461
<LOANS>                                        111,830
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,062
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 162,361
<DEPOSITS>                                     150,368
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                995
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,470
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,528
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 162,361
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  9,775
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,097
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   107
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                11,979
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               5,994
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,023
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            5,956
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      320
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  39
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  5,277
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,685
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,685
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,123
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .15
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.71
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      9
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   762
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       38
<RECOVERIES>                                        18
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,062
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                25
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          1,037


</TABLE>
#### STATE ex rel. Secundino CASTANEDA v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 87-KH-0709.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 23, 1987.

In re Castaneda, Secundino; applying for supervisory writs; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “A”, No. 311-54.

Denied. No particularized need shown.
#### STATE ex rel. Sam BALL v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 87-KH-2664.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 8, 1988.

In re Ball, Sam; applying for writ of mandamus; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “F”, No. 311-835.

Denied.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 22

- 00227

- CR

Steven Duane Williams , Appellant

v.

The State of Texas , Appellee

FROM THE 426TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY NO. 82662 , THE HONORABLE STEVEN J. DUSKIE , JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Steven Duane Williams filed a motion to dismiss this appe a l by

withdraw ing his notice of appeal . We grant the motion and dismiss the a ppe al. See Tex. R.

App

. P. 4 2. 2 ( a ).

________________________________________ __ Darlene Byrne , Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Kelly and Smith

Dismissed on Appellant ’ s Motion

Filed: May 18, 2022

Do Not Publish
Exhibit 32.1.2

STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

The undersigned, Stephen W. Ensign, is the President and Chief Executive Officer of New Hampshire Thrift Bancshares, Inc. (the
Company). This statement is being furnished in connection with the filing by the Company of the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 (the Report).

By execution of this statement, I certify that:



| | A) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | B) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and
for the periods covered by the Report.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the Report
so that this statement will accompany the Report at such time as the Report is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not intended
that this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original
of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



|                       |  |                                     
|---------------------- |  | ------------------------------------
|Date: October 15, 2010 |  | /s/ Stephen W. Ensign               
|                       |  | Stephen W. Ensign                   
|                       |  | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
|                 |   |                                                                                                        |
|----------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                 |   |                                                                                                        |
|                 |   |                                                                                                        |
| August      14, 2008 |   | /s/      Gregory Webster                                                                                    |
|                 |   | Name:  Gregory      Webster                                                                       |
|                 |   |        Title:    Chief Executive Officer   (Principal      Executive Officer) |
|                 |   |                                                                                                        |
|                 |   |                                                                                                        |

| August      14, 2008 | By:    | /s/      Michael Hlavsa                                                                        |
|----------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                 |   | Name:  Michael      Hlavsa                                                           |
|                 |   | Title:         Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting      Officer) |
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Craig A. TROTTER.

No. 87-KH-0018.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 30, 1987.

In re Trotter, Craig A.; applying for remedial writ; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “G”, No. 295-663.

Granted. Trial judge ordered to furnish relator with copy of his *Boykin*transcript in 295-663G.
# L_2006343EN.01008101.xml

| 8.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 343/81 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 343/81

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1813/2006

of 7 December 2006

concerning tenders notified in response to the invitation to tender for the export of common wheat issued in Regulation (EC) No 936/2006

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of common wheat to certain third countries was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 936/2006 (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of common wheat to certain third countries was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 936/2006 (2).

| (2) | Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals (3), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals (3), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,

| (3) | On the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95, a maximum refund should not be fixed. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

On the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95, a maximum refund should not be fixed.

| (4) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

No action shall be taken on the tenders notified from 1 to 7 December 2006 in response to the invitation to tender for the refund for the export of common wheat issued in Regulation (EC) No 936/2006.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 8 December 2006.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 7 December 2006.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 78. Regulation as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1154/2005 (OJ L 187, 19.7.2005, p. 11).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 172, 24.6.2006, p. 6.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 147, 30.6.1995, p. 7. Regulation as last modified by Regulation (EC) No 777/2004 (OJ L 123, 27.4.2004, p. 50).

3

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

June 25, 2012

d0618

Order 

June 25, 2012

144804

NORMAN GIBLER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 144804

COA: 304418

Ingham CC: 10-000503-AA

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 3, 2012 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### Minnie Lee HYDRICK v. Gracie Bell MORGAN, Executrix of the Estate of Jim Morgan, Deceased.

No. 57372.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

December 9, 1987.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 20, 1988.

Ross R. Barnett, Jr., Jackson, for appellant.

Dennis L. Horn, Horn & Payne, Jackson, for appellee.

Before DAN M. LEE, P.J., and ROBERTSON and GRIFFIN, JJ.

AFFIRMED.

ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., HAWKINS, P.J., and PRATHER, SULLIVAN, SANDERSON and ZUCCARO, JJ., concur.
#### Tony Andre COX v. STATE.

CR 91-497.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

Sept. 30, 1993.

William J. Brower, Birmingham, for appellant.

James H. Evans, Atty. Gen., and Jean Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

*AFTER REMAND*

BOWEN, Presiding Judge.

Based on the opinion of the Alabama Supreme Court in *Cox v. State,*629 So.2d 670 (Ala.1993), regarding the *Batson*issue, and on Part II of this Court’s opinion in *Cox v. State,*629 So.2d 664 (Ala.Cr.App.1992), holding that the evidence was sufficient to sup*673port Cox’s conviction, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

All Judges concur.
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**Certification
      Pursuant To**


**Section
      906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**





The
      undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies
      that:




1.  This
      quarterly report of Affinity Media International Corp. 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 operation of Affinity Media International
      Corp.




Date:
              August 10, 2007
            By:
            /s/ Howard
              CohlHoward
              CohlPresident, Treasurer and Director
              (Principal
                financial and accounting officer)




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to Affinity Media International Corp. and
      will
      be retained by Affinity Media International Corp. and furnished to the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.1

                            APD ANTIQUITIES, INC.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 USC SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSANT TO SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the periodic report of APD ANTIQUITIES, INC., a Nevada
corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September
30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Report"), I, CINDY K. SWANK, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63,
Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1)  the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
     15(d), as applicable, 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
     Company at the dates and for the periods indicated.

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, "filed" with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.


Date:  May 19, 2008

By: /s/ Cindy K. Swank
    -----------------------------
        Cindy K. Swank, President
        Chief Executive Officer,
        Chief Financial Officer

<PAGE>
Exhibit 32.1


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
   In connection with the Annual Report of Wikiloan, Inc., (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the annual period ending January 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Marco Garibaldi, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:
  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 Company.
  Date: May 10, 2011
 /s/ Marco GaribaldiMarco GaribaldiChief Executive Officer
  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-50487

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

EPIFANIO GONZALES-HERNANDEZ, 

also known as Epifanio 

Hernandez Gonzalez,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. A-99-CR-214-1-JN

--------------------

August 15, 2001

Before JONES, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Court-appointed counsel for Epifanio Gonzales-Hernandez has

filed a motion to withdraw and a brief pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Gonzales-Hernandez has received

a copy of counsel’s brief. He requests permission to proceed 

pro se, and he has filed a brief. 

Gonzales-Hernandez’s request for permission to proceed pro

se, filed after counsel filed the Anders brief, is DENIED as
No. 00-50487

-2-

untimely to invoke the statutory right of self-representation. 

United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998). 

In his brief, Gonzales-Hernandez argues that the district

court erred in refusing to grant him a reduction for acceptance

of responsibility. Gonzales-Hernandez knowingly and voluntarily

waived his right to appeal his sentence except in certain limited

circumstances not applicable here. See United States v.

Portillo, 18 F.3d 290, 292 (5th Cir. 1994). This argument is

therefore foreclosed. 

Gonzales-Hernandez also argues that he did not waive his

right to effective assistance of counsel and that his trial

counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the managerial

role adjustment. The record has not been adequately developed

for us to consider this argument on direct appeal. See United

States v. Haese, 162 F.3d 359, 363 (5th Cir. 1998). 

Our independent review of the brief, the record, and

Gonzales-Hernandez’s response discloses no nonfrivolous issue in

this direct appeal. Accordingly, the motion for leave to

withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th

Cir. R. 42.2.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AT DECEMBER 31, 1996, AND THE STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE TWELVE
MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FIANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           7,216
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      691
<ALLOWANCES>                                        31
<INVENTORY>                                      1,053
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          49,783
<DEPRECIATION>                                  19,128
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  59,334
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,201
<BONDS>                                         24,300
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    59,334
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                19,826
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   18,028
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   171
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,813
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (15)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (15)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (15)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Earl LOWE.

No. 88-K-0632.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 20, 1988.

In re State of Louisiana; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. KA-7630; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “I”, No. 316-255.

Prior report: La.App., 521 So.2d 454.

Denied.
#### Sarah PENNIMAN and Frank Penniman, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AUTO-OWNERS (MUTUAL) INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 83CA0038.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. I.

Sept. 22, 1983.

Justin R. Melat, Colorado Springs, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Dale L. Holst, Colorado Springs, for defendant-appellee.

PIERCE, Judge.

The facts stipulated to by the parties present a single, issue for review: Are the personal injury protection benefits to which plaintiff, Sarah Penniman, a non-owner passenger on a motorcycle, is entitled under the requirements of the Colorado Auto Accident Reparations Act § 10-4-701, et seq., C.R.S.1973, to be paid by the liability insurance carrier of the automobile that collided *819with the motorcycle? Our answer is no. We therefore affirm the trial court.

The plaintiffs argue Sarah’s injury falls within the purview of such coverage by claiming that she was a pedestrian at the time of the accident. However, specific language of § 10-4-703(9), C.R.S.1973, excludes from the definition of pedestrian, a person who is riding in or upon a motor vehicle, or “a machine operated by motor or engine.” A motorcycle is a machine operated by motor or engine, and plaintiff was riding on it. Therefore, she was not a pedestrian.

The issue was fully addressed and disposed of in the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order of the trial court.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

BERMAN and METZGER, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>



                                                                   Exhibit 23.1

                        Consent of Arthur Andersen, LLP


         REPORT OF ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP, INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


To the Board of Directors and Stockholders
  Of T/SF Communications Corporation:

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the inclusion in this
Form 10-K of our report dated February 21, 1997, included in the Registration
Statement File No. 1-10263. It should be noted that we have not audited any
financial statements of the company subsequent to December 31, 1996, or
performed any audit procedures subsequent to the date of our report.

/s/ Arthur Andersen LLP

Tulsa, Oklahoma
 March 25, 1999