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

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          10,374
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             108
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 2,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                10,118
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     45,918
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          24,042
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        158,790
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,100
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 263,015
<DEPOSITS>                                     225,039
<SHORT-TERM>                                     7,600
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                989
<LONG-TERM>                                      7,739
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,342
<OTHER-SE>                                      14,307
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 263,015
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 14,044
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                5,550
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                19,594
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               9,251
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,422
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            9,172
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      300
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                (220)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  8,762
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,149
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,611
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.36
<LOANS-NON>                                        793
<LOANS-PAST>                                       757
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,904
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      321
<RECOVERIES>                                       217
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,100
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,937
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            163
        

</TABLE>
### Finamore, Robert (OST) From: 

### Sent: To: 

### Cc: Subject:
Dear Mr. Finamore, Roche, Michael <mroche@whitecase.com> Friday, December 

### 14, 2012 4:14 PM Finamore, Robert 

### (OST) Smith, Anne Star Flyer Inc, Application for Exemption .,;·;I"! (.**~.~**;. i.

Thank you for taking the time to speakwith me this morning regarding Star Flyer Inc: ("Star Flyer")'s pending application for an exemption. As we discussed, Star Flyer's largest shareholder (a US entity known as DCM IV, L.P.) announced today that it has sold its 

### 475,918 shares (representing 

### 16.61% ofStar Flyer's outstanding stock) to Japan's All Nippon Airways ("ANA"). As a result ofthis transaction, ANA is now Star Flyer's largest shareholder with 

### 514,700 shares (representing 

### 17.97% of Star Flyer's outstanding stock). Star Flyer respectfully requests that the Department take note. of this transaction with respect to Paragraph 8 and Exhibit B of Star Flyer's pending application. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions concerning this matter. Respectfully submitted, Michael Roche ') Michael A. Roche 1Associate T +1 202 729 2422 M +1 615 957 5397 E mroche@whitecase.com White & Case LLP 1 701 Thirteenth Street, NW 1 Washington, DC 20005-3807 

# WHtt£&c:ASE



# ============================================================================== PLEASENOTE: The information contained inthis message is privileged and confidential, and is intended only for the use ofthe individual named above and others who have been specifically authorizedto receive it. Ifyou are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution orcopying ofthis communicationis strictly prohibited. Ifyouhave received this communicationin error, orifanyproblems occur withtransmission, please contact sender orcall (202) 626-3600. Thankyou.**========================================================================~====~**

1
**Exhibit 99.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

               In connection with the Quarterly Reportof Alliance Bancshares California (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Curtis S. Reis, President and ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|   | /s/ CURTIS S. REIS                        |
|--------|-------------------------------------------|
|   |                                           |
|   | **President and Chief Executive Officer** |

Date:  May 14, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Alliance Bancshares California and will be retained by Alliance Bancshares California and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit
10.24




Husker
Ag, LLC

Director
Compensation Policy







The
Husker Ag, LLC Board of Directors has adopted a Board compensation policy,
pursuant to which directors are paid $200 per meeting, if the director is
present in person at the meeting through adjournment, otherwise the director is
paid $100 per meeting attended. Directors are paid $100 per committee meeting
attended in person and $50 per committee meeting attended via telephone
conference. Directors are also reimbursed at $0.405 per mile (as of January 1,
2005) for mileage reimbursement for travel to and from meetings.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENTOF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

Wehave issued our report dated March 11, 2010, with respect to theconsolidated financial statements included in the Annual Report of WinmarkCorporation on Form 10-K for the year ended December 26, 2009.  We hereby consent to the incorporation byreference of said report in the Registration Statements of Winmark Corporationon Form S-8 (File No. 33-85972, effective November 2, 1994; FileNo. 33-85956, effective November 2, 1994; File No. 33-79176,effective May 20, 1994; File No. 33-71772, effective November 16,1993; File No. 333-03236, effective May 10, 2007; File No. 333-03066,effective April 1, 1996; File No. 333-03068, effective April 1,1996; File No. 333-81392, effective January 25, 2002; File No. 333-120489,effective November 15, 2004; File No. 333-138798, effective November 17,2006; and File No. 333-143281, effective May 25, 2007).

 

/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP

 

 

Minneapolis, Minnesota

March 11, 2010

 

----
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

James Randell Hall, * From the 104th District

 Court of Taylor County,

 Trial Court No. 18960B.

Vs. No. 11-14-00117-CR * April 21, 2016

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Wright, C.J.

 (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

 Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that 

there is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this 

court’s opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 96-4404

GEORGE EDWARD JONES,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston.

Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge.

(CR-95-179)

Submitted: May 6, 1997

Decided: May 22, 1997

Before WIDENER and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges, and

PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Brenda Craig Ellis, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Rebecca

A. Betts, United States Attorney, Susan M. Arnold, Assistant United

States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

George Edward Jones pled guilty to mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1341

(1994), and false representation of a Social Security number, 42

U.S.C.A. § 408(a)(7)(B) (West Supp. 1997). The district court calculated an offense level of 15 and determined that Jones' nine criminal

history points placed him in category IV, producing a sentencing

range of 30-37 months.* Finding that category IV was inadequate, the

court sua sponte departed upward to criminal history category VI

although neither the probation officer nor the government had suggested that a departure would be appropriate. After establishing a new

sentencing range of 41-51 months, the court imposed a sentence of 51

months. Jones appeals this sentence, contending that the district court

erred in departing without giving him adequate notice and that the

departure was not justified. We vacate the sentence and remand for

resentencing.

In Burns v. United States, 501 U.S. 129, 138 (1991), the Supreme

Court held that a sentencing court may not depart upward for a reason

not identified in the presentence report or a government motion as a

possible ground for departure without first giving the defendant reasonable notice that it is considering departure on that specific ground.

See also United States v. Maddox, 48 F.3d 791, 799 (4th Cir. 1995);

United States v. Maxton, 940 F.2d 103, 106 (4th Cir. 1991). Because

Jones received no notice of a possible departure, Burns requires that

he be resentenced.

Accordingly, we vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.

We express no opinion on the merits of the departure. Should the district court again wish to depart, it must give the parties reasonable

advance notice that it may depart and the grounds for the departure

being considered. We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED

_________________________________________________________________

*United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, § 5A

(Nov. 1995).

 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          25,548
<SECURITIES>                                 1,480,785
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,588,537
<ALLOWANCES>                                   570,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,593,883
<PP&E>                                         425,013
<DEPRECIATION>                                 231,541
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,809,288
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,940,737
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    250,000
<COMMON>                                     3,375,897
<OTHER-SE>                                 (3,100,423)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,809,288
<SALES>                                      7,214,781
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,214,781
<CGS>                                        5,295,567
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,212,384
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                45,902
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               554,798
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             110,034
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,003,904)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,003,904)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,003,904)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.40)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.40)
        


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

*               *In connection with the QuarterlyReport of Alliance Bancshares California (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Curtis S. Reis, President andChief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|                       | /s/ CURTIS S. REIS                        |   |
|----------------------------|-------------------------------------------|--------|
|                       |                                           |   |
|                       | **President and Chief Executive Officer** |   |
|                       |                                      |   |
| Date:  August 8, 2003 |                                      |

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided toAlliance Bancshares California and will be retained by Alliance Bancshares California and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### In re Application of Manie KEPHART For Writ of Habeas Corpus.

No. A-12103.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

Sept. 15, 1954.

*416Manie Kephart, pro se.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

POWELL, Presiding Judge.

Petitioner, Manie Kephart, has filed in this court a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in which it is alleged that petitioner is restrained in the Oklahoma State Penitentiary at McAlester by reason of a sentence of 25 years imposed by the district court of Custer County, in case No. 1630, on a conviction for indecent exposure, said offense having been committed by petitioner after having been convicted of the crime of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon with intent to do bodily harm in case No. 760; after having been convicted of the crime of larceny in case No. 907; and after having been convicted of the crime of indecent exposure, case No. 1327, all in the district court of Custer County.

Petitioner alleges that the sentence assessed in case No. 1630, under which he is presently incarcerated, is illegal and excessive. It is alleged that all the prior crimes for which he was convicted carried a maximum sentence of not more than five years, and that by Section 51, subd. 2, of Title 21, O.S.1951, the maximum sentence that could have legally been imposed would have been not to exceed ten years.

The Attorney General has filed a demurrer to the petition for writ of habeas cor-, pus, setting out that contrary to the con. tention of' petitioner, that the punishment for conviction of indecent exposure may bfl for a maximum period of ten years.

The pertinent portion of Tit. 21 O.S.1951 § 1021, reads:

> “ * * * shall be punished by the imposition of a fine not less than Ten Dollars ($10.00) nor more than One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) or by imprisonment for not less than thirty (30) days nor more than ten (10) years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.”

The Attorney General further points out that sub-division 1 of Section 51, of Title 21, O.S.1951, provides:

> “If the offense of which such person is subsequently convicted is such that upon a first conviction an offender would be punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary for any term exceeding five years, such person is punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term not less than ten years.”

From the statutory provision cited it is apparent that there is no merit to the contention of the petitioner. As to the imprisonment, the trial court could have assessed not less than ten years, but was not restricted in assessing a much greater penalty. We must assume, in the absence of the record on appeal, that the court was well justified by the evidence in assessing the penalty of twenty-five years for the reprehensible crime for which defendant was convicted.

The demurrer of the respondent is sustained, and the writ denied.

JONES and BRETT, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7538 MAURICE DONIKIN-EL, a/k/a Maurice Donikin, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GENE M. JOHNSON, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (CA-05-493-RBS) Submitted: February 16, 2006 Decided: February 22, 2006 Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Maurice Donikin-El, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Maurice Donikin-El, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) as an unauthorized second or successive petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Jones v. Braxton , 392 F.3d 683 (4th Cir. 2004). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Donikin-El has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion for appointment of counsel, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<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 Quarterly Report of iPayment, Inc. ("the Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006 (the "Report"), I Gregory S.
Daily, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

      (a)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended; and

      (b)   the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.

This Certification is executed as of May 10, 2006.

                    /s/ GREGORY S. DAILY
                    ------------------------------------------
                    GREGORY S. DAILY
                    CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
# C_2009019EN.01001702.xml

| 24.1.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/17

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 19 November 2008 — Ingeniørforeningen i Danmark for Ole Andersen v Region Syddanmark

(Case C-499/08)

(2009/C 19/31)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Vestre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ingeniørforeningen i Danmark for Ole Andersen

Applicant:

Defendant: Region Syddanmark

Defendant:

Question referred

Is the prohibition of direct or indirect discrimination on grounds of age contained in Articles 2 and 6 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC (1) to be interpreted as precluding a Member State from maintaining a legal situation whereby an employer, upon dismissal of a salaried employee who has been continuously employed in the same undertaking for 12, 15 or 18 years, must, upon termination of the salaried employee's employment, pay an amount equivalent to one, two or three months' salary respectively, but as meaning that this allowance is not to be paid where the salaried employee, upon termination of employment, is entitled to receive an old-age pension from a pension scheme to which the employer has contributed?

1

---

(1)  OJ L 303, 2.12.2000, p. 16.

1

---