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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-01-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-01-1997
<CASH>                                         179,546
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,808,818
<ALLOWANCES>                                    46,000
<INVENTORY>                                    931,452
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,887,617
<PP&E>                                         882,453
<DEPRECIATION>                                 457,556
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,370,310
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,107,535
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       399,999
<OTHER-SE>                                     403,083
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,370,310
<SALES>                                      2,649,203
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,999,802
<CGS>                                        1,207,971
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,013,950
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                25,455
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             362,599
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                389,827
<INCOME-TAX>                                   116,895
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            272,932
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   272,932
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .07
        

</TABLE>
#### City of Jacksonville, a Municipal Corporation, Plaintiff in Error, v. Frank K. Howard, Defendant in Error.

Division B.

Writ of Error to Circuit Court, Duval county; Rhydon M. Call, Judge.

*J. M. Barrs*and *P. E. Odom,*for Plaintiff in Error.

No appearance for Defendant in Error.

*412Per Curiam.

This action was ■ brought by the defendant in error against the plaintiff in error. There was judgment for the plaintiff and the defendant takes writ of error. The judgment is affirmed.

Decision
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

Fruit and Vegetable Division 

Processed Products Branch 

 A-492 

 July 1996 

SUBJECT: Fortification of Standardized Juices

TO: All Inspectors 

FILE UNDER: Citrus Manual: Section 3, Parts 1 and 2, Food and Drug Standards 

 Commodity Folders: Standardized Fruit Juices, Concentrated and Single 

 Strength 

PURPOSE 

To clarify grading procedures when a standardized fruit juice product is subject to mineral or 

vitamin fortification, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Standards of Identity may or 

may not include such enrichment or fortification as an optional ingredient. 

PROCEDURE

When FDA’s Standards of Identity for fruit juices, 21 CFR Part 146, have no provision for 

mineral or vitamin fortification (optional ingredients), then any addition of such ingredients 

beyond a level which is normally expected for the product changes the product characteristics. 

This prohibits the end item from being considered under the product’s original Standards of 

Identity. Therefore, the finished product is evaluated as a No Applicable Grade (NAG) item, 

using appropriate descriptive terms to record the level of quality. The applicant has the 

responsibility to ensure product labels bear the correct information in accordance with FDA’s 

“Generic Standard,” 21 CFR 130.10. 

When FDA Standards of Identity of a finished product or the concentrates used to produce such 

product allows for the addition of a vitamin or (fortifier), then the U.S. Standards for Grades is 

applicable and a U.S. Grade is assigned. 
2

EXAMPLE:

Orange juice from concentrate $146.145, of 21 CFR Part 146, may be produced from the 

standardized products of $146.146, $146.153, $146.135, $146.137, $146.140, and/or $146.151. 

FDA prohibits the addition of a vitamin in any of these products. Should a vitamin be added, the 

U.S. Standards for Grades is not applicable, and the orange juice from concentrate is evaluated as 

a NAG item. 

 

James R. Rodeheaver 

Branch Chief 

Distribution: A 

Agriculture: Washington
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

RICARDO ORTIZ CRUZ,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 18

- 30250

D.C. No. 9:18

- cr

- 00026

- D

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana

Dana L. Christensen, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted December 11, 2019

Seattle, Washington

Before: GRABER and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and EZRA, * * District Judge.

Petitioner Ricardo Ortiz Cruz appeals the d istrict c ourt ’s denial of his m otion

to s uppress ammunition seized from his vehicle. W e affirm

.

Although we review the denial of a motion to suppress de novo , we review a

district court’s underlying factual findings for clear error. U nited S tates v.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The Honorable David A. Ezra, United States District Judge for the

District of Hawaii, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

FEB 4 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 18

- 30250

Fernandez

- Castillo , 324 F.3d 1114, 1117 (9th Cir. 2003). We hold there was no

clear error in the district court’s determination of the office r’s credibility

. The

district court was not required to disbelieve the testifying agent. This is not a case,

as in Anderson v. City of Bessemer City , 470 U.S. 564, 575−81 (1985), in wh ich

objective evidence contradicts the witness’s story or the story it self is so

inconsistent that a reasonable factfinder would not credit it. Furthermore, this is

not a situation in wh ich there is absolute proof of a lie.

The district court’s decision necessarily involved a personal assessment of

demeanor and other aspects of credibility, as well as consideration of the

documents. T he district court did not clearly err by consider ing Officer Granado’s

statements at the evidentiary hearing in determin ing whether he had reasonable

suspicion to believe that the operator of the vehicle was evading border patrol. As

to the broader reasonable suspicion analysis, if Officer Granado is credible, then

the sear ch and seizure were lawful and the motion to suppress was properly denied.

Counsel conceded as much at oral argument.

AFFIRMED

.
IV

107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 467

Expressing the sense of Congress that Lionel Hampton should be honored

for his contributions to American music.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 12, 2002

Mr. RANGEL submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred

to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of Congress that Lionel Hampton

should be honored for his contributions to American music.

Whereas Lionel Hampton was one the Nation’s greatest jazz

musicians, composers, and band leaders;

Whereas Lionel Hampton was one of the first musicians to

play the vibraphone in jazz, setting the standard for mastery of that instrument;

Whereas Lionel Hampton nurtured and inspired many of the

greatest performers of jazz music who would go on to

fame in their own right;

Whereas Lionel Hampton shattered the racial barriers of his

time when he was recruited to perform with the Benny

Goodman band in the 1930s, creating for first time an

integrated public face of jazz music;
2

•HCON 467 IH

Whereas Lionel Hampton, with his performances around the

world, was a musical ambassador of goodwill and friendship for the United States;

Whereas Lionel Hampton was never deterred by fame from

contributing to the Harlem, New York, community that

he viewed as his home;

Whereas Lionel Hampton was active in the development of

affordable housing, among them Harlem’s Gladys Hampton Houses, named after his late wife, the former Gladys

Riddle;

Whereas Lionel Hampton performed at the White House

under Republican and Democratic presidents and was

honored with the Presidential Gold Medal by President

Bill Clinton; and

Whereas Lionel Hampton was born in Louisville, Kentucky

on April 20, 1908, and died in New York City on August

31, 2002: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that Lionel

3 Hampton should be honored for his contributions to Amer4 ican music and for his work as an ambassador of goodwill

5 and democracy.

Æ
#### ALASKA FAR EAST CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Richard NEWBY, Appellee.

No. 5238.

Supreme Court of Alaska.

July 10, 1981.

Clay A. Young, Delaney, Wiles, Moore, Hayes & Reitman, Inc., Anchorage, for appellant.

Helen L. Simpson, Anchorage, for appel-lee.

Before RABINOWITZ, C.J., CONNOR, BURKE and MATTHEWS, JJ., and SCHULZ, Superior Court Judge.*

*

 Schulz, Superior Court Judge, sitting by assignment made pursuant to article IV, section 16 of the Constitution of Alaska.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

This appeal arises out of an action for money due on an oral contract. Alaska Far East Corporation has appealed on the ground that certain of the superior court’s findings of fact, supporting a judgment for Newby of $30,416, were clearly erroneous.

A trial court’s findings of fact will not be set aside on appeal unless they are clearly erroneous. Civil Rule 52(a). A clearly erroneous finding is one which leaves the reviewing court with the definite and firm conviction on the entire record that a mistake has been made. *Lewis v. Anchorage Asphalt Paving Co.,*579 P.2d 532, 534 (Alaska 1978). Due regard shall be given to the trial court’s opportunity to *534observe witnesses, and deference is particularly appropriate when, as in this case, the bulk of the evidence at trial was oral testimony. *Curran v. Hastreiter,*579 P.2d 524, 527 (Alaska 1978). It is not our function on appeal to subject the proceedings below to independent review, *Martens v. Metzgar,*591 P.2d 541, 544 (Alaska 1979). A finding of fact is not clearly erroneous merely because the supreme court might have found the facts differently had it been the trier of fact. *State v. Kaatz,*572 P.2d 775, 782 (Alaska 1977). Having reviewed the entire record of the trial, we cannot conclude that the superior court’s findings are clearly erroneous.

The appellant has also questioned the superior court’s computation of prejudgment interest. Under *City and Borough of Juneau v. Commercial Union Insurance Co.,*598 P.2d 957 (Alaska 1979) and AS 45.45.-010, the correct formula for prejudgment interest in this case is 6% from May 17, 1975, to September 11, 1976, and 8% from September 12, 1976, to January 17, 1980. On appellant’s motion the superior court amended its judgment to reflect the proper computation of interest.

The judgment of the superior court as amended is AFFIRMED.

COMPTON, J., not participating.
Exhibit 34.2

 

 

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

 

The Board of Directors

U.S. Bank National Association

 

We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria, that U.S. Bank National Association (the “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the U.S. Bank Corporate Trust Asset-Backed Securities Platform (the “Platform”), for which the Company provides trustee, securities administration, registrar and paying agent services, as of and for the year ended March 31, 2022, except forservicing criteria Items 1122 (d)(1)(i)-(v), 1122 (d)(2)(i), 1122 (d)(2)(iii), 1122 (d)(2)(v)-(vii), 1122 (d)(3)(i), and 1122 (d)(4)(i)-(xv),  which the Company has determined are not applicable to the activities it performs with respect to the servicing platform covered by this report. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion about the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of less than all of the individual asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of less than all of the servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria.  Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe that the evidence we obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

 

Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended March 31, 2022, for the U.S. Bank Corporate Trust Asset-Backed Securities Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.

 

 

/s/Ernst & Young LLP

 

 

Minneapolis, Minnesota

May 26, 2022

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 11, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 21812]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8623]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Biological Science Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting: 
Correction

    Summary: The National Science Foundation (NSF) published in the 
Federal Register on April 2, 2012, a notice of an open meeting for the 
Biological Sciences Advisory Committee, <greek-i>1110. This notice is 
to correct the year of the meeting date.

Correction

    On page 19740, column 2, under Date and Time, please replace 
``April 26, 2011; 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.'' with ``April 26, 2012; 1 p.m. to 3 
p.m.''

     Dated: April 5, 2012.
Susanne Bolton,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2012-8623 Filed 4-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
#### The State of Florida *ex rel.*Frank S. Porter, Plaintiff in Error, v. *W.*D. Vinzant, Chief of Police of the City of Jacksonville, Defendant in Error.

A writ of error to a judgment in a habeas corpus proceeding issued by the Clerk of the Circuit Court, without the allowance thereof either by the judge who heard the cause or. by a justice of the Supreme Court, is a nullity.

This case was decided by Division A.

Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Duval County.

The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.

*Geo. TJ.*Walker, for Plaintiff in Error.

*W. E. Ellis,*Attorney-General, *J. M. Barrs*and *P. E.*Odum, for Defendant in Error.

Shackleford, J.

An application was made 1o the Judge of the Fourth Judicial Circuit of Florida, for a writ of *habeas corpus*on the petition of Frank S. Porter, and on the hearing thereof an. order ivas made denying *the writ and*remanding the petitioner to the custody of W. D. Vinzant, Chief of Police of the city of Jacksonville. To this judgment the Clerk of the Circuit Court in and for Duval County issued a writ of error returnable before this court on the 25th day of January, 1905. There was no allowance or grant of this writ by this court; nor by any of its justices, or by the Circuit Judge, as provided by *131section 1780 of Rev. Stats. of 1892, as amended by Chapter 4920, laws of 1901, consequently this court must refuse to entertain the same, under the authority of Wright v. State, 32 Fla. 472, 14 South. Rep. 43, and it must be dismissed at the cost of the relator.

Whitfield, C. J., and Carter, J., concur.

Taylor, P. J., and Hooker and Cockrell, JJ., concur in the opinion.
Exhibit
32.1





TOT
Energy, Inc.


12100 NE
16 Ave; Suite 210


North
Miami, FL 33161





June
29, 2010





Securities
and Exchange Commission


100 F
Street, NE


Washington,
DC 20549





Re:
Certification Pursuant To 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350





Dear
Ladies and Gentlemen:





In
connection with the accompanying Amended Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of TOT
Energy, Inc., for the quarter ended December 31, 2009, each of the undersigned
hereby certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States
Code), to the undersigned’s knowledge that:




1.
            such
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of TOT Energy, Inc., for the quarter ended
      December 31, 2009, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of TOT Energy,
      Inc., for the quarter ended December 31, 2009, fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      TOT Energy, Inc.





BY:
      /S/ Mike ZoiMike
      ZoiChief
      Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)BY:
      /S/ Jonathan NewJonathan
      NewChief
      Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial and Accounting
Officer)





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, 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 TOT Energy, Inc. and will be
retained by TOT Energy, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.





In
accordance with Item 601 of Regulation S-K, this certification is
being “furnished” as Exhibit 32.2 to TOT Energy, Inc.’s quarterly report
and shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) or otherwise subject to the
liabilities of that section, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by reference in
any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act, except as
expressly set forth by specific reference in such a filing.
U. S. Department of Agriculture

Agricultural Marketing Service

NOTICE OF SALE OF COTTON

FOR RELEASE AT 2:00 P.M. CT February 7, 2020

USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service today announced the sale of Cotton. The cotton bales were sold under 

Invitation 2020U0035 dated February 7, 2020.

Invitation 2020U0035

Catalog Lot 

No. Catalog Location Purchaser Pounds Sold 

Price Sold 

(per Pound) CCC Revenue 

3 ALTUS, OK ACG Cotton Marketing LLC 7,825 0.4876 $3,815.47 

12 BALLINGER, TX ACG Cotton Marketing LLC 1,425 0.4876 $694.83 

13 BIG SPRINGS, TX ACG Cotton Marketing LLC 3,356 0.4876 $1,636.39 

14 Sweetwater, TX ACG Cotton Marketing LLC 128,249 0.4876 $62,534.21 

15 CORPUS CHRISTI, TX ACG Cotton Marketing LLC 32,845 0.4876 $16,015.22 

21 RAYMONDVILLE, TX ACG Cotton Marketing LLC 23,543 0.4876 $11,479.57 

197,243 $96,175.69
Exhibit 32.0

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the report of SI Financial Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as added by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the
period covered by this Report.
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/ Rheo A. BrouillardRheo A. BrouillardPresident and Chief Executive OfficerAugust 14, 2007By:

/s/ Brian J. HullBrian J. HullExecutive Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial OfficerAugust 14, 2007
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer of GFI Group Inc.  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 Quarterly Report of GFI Group Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the three months
ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael Gooch, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



Date:
May 11, 2009

|                                                            |  | 
|----------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/ MICHAEL GOOCH                                           |  | 
|Michael Gooch Chairman of the Board
Chief Executive Officer |  | 

---



QuickLinks
January 31, 2012

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

RAFAEL LIMAS PENA, Appellant

NO. 14-10-00740-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

____________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having 

considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The 

Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED and that this decision be certified below for 

observance.