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

<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         101,835
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               101,835
<PP&E>                                          26,698
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (3,670)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 299,833
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,019,191
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        63,890
<OTHER-SE>                                    (783,248)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   299,833
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,665,092
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,428
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,677,520)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,677,520)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,677,520)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.42)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.42)


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 129 (Friday, September 21, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1647]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                    OUR UNCONSCIONABLE NATIONAL DEBT

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. MIKE COFFMAN

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                       Friday, September 21, 2012

  Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, on January 20, 2009, the day 
President Obama took office; the national debt was 
$10,626,877,048,913.08.
  Today, it is $16,014,424,023,771.68. We've added 
$5,387,546,974,858.60 dollars to our debt in 3.5 years. This is $5.4 
trillion in debt our nation, our economy, and our children could have 
avoided with a balanced budget amendment.

                          ____________________
```
<PAGE>



                     32.2 SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF CFO

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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 Commonwealth Income & Growth Fund IV,
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2005, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Kimberly A. Springsteen, Principal Financial 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 the best of 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 result of operations of the
Company.

/s/ Kimberly A. Springsteen
---------------------------
Kimberly A. Springsteen
Principal Financial Officer
August 11, 2005
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 39015

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

TIMOTHY DALE HILSCHER,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 461

Filed: May 3, 2012

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 

OPINION AND SHALL NOT 

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Cassia

County. Hon. Michael R. Crabtree, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and suspended unified sentences of ten years, with a 

minimum period of confinement of two years, for delivery of a controlled 

substance and seven years, with one year determinate, for possession of a 

controlled substance, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Diane M. Walker, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge;

and GUTIERREZ, Judge

PER CURIAM

Timothy Dale Hilscher pled guilty to delivery of a controlled substance. Idaho Code 

§ 37-2732(a)(1)(A). Hilscher also entered an Alford1 plea to possession of a controlled 

substance, I.C. § 37-2732(c)(1). The district court sentenced Hilscher to concurrent unified 

sentences of ten years, with two years determinate for delivery of a controlled substance, and 

seven years with one year determinate, for possession of a controlled substance. The court 

 

1 See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970). 
2

suspended the sentences and placed Hilscher on probation. Hilscher appeals, asserting that the 

district court abused its discretion by imposing excessive sentences.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Hilscher’s judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.
<PAGE>   1




                                   EXHIBIT 11


<PAGE>   2



                                FRIEDMAN'S INC.

                STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                     YEARS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,
                                                   1997                   1996
                                                   ----                   ----
                                           (Amounts in thousands except per share data)
<S>                                               <C>                   <C>           
Average shares outstanding.....................    14,408                12,779
Net effect of dilutive stock options...........       131                   252
                                                   ------                ------
         Total.................................    14,539                13,031
                                                   ------                ====== 

Net Income.....................................   $19,267               $13,833
Per share amount...............................   $  1.33               $  1.06
</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7469

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MERLIN WAYNE TURNER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief

District Judge. (CR-97-166-MU, CA-00-497-MU)

Submitted: January 28, 2002 Decided: February 28, 2002

Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Merlin Wayne Turner, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C.F. Shappert,

Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Turner claims that counsel was ineffective for failing to

inform him that he would be exposed to a mandatory ten-year term of

supervised release. Because he failed to present this claim to the

district court, we decline to address it. See Muth v. United

States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993) (holding that claims raised

for the first time on appeal will not be considered absent

exceptional circumstances).

2

PER CURIAM:

Merlin Wayne Turner seeks to appeal the district court’s order

granting the Government’s motion for summary judgment and denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001). We

have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning of

the district court. See United States v. Turner, Nos. CR-97-166-

MU; CA-00-497-MU (W.D.N.C. filed June 26, 2001 & entered June 29,

2001).* 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
1

The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-2673

___________

Michael J. Jackson, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Pamela Fick; Midwest Litigation *

Service; John Doe, Owner, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: November 7, 2008

 Filed: November 17, 2008

___________

Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Missouri inmate Michael Jackson appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of

summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, in which he sued the court reporter

in his state criminal trial, and others, for damages and a stay of his pending state-court

appeal, based on allegations that the transcript of his trial was deliberately altered. 
2

The court also did not abuse its discretion in denying Jackson’s request for a

stay of his state criminal appeal. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 56 (1971)

Aaron v. Target Corp., 357 F.3d 768, 774 (8th Cir. 2004). 

-2-

Reviewing the record de novo and viewing the evidence and all reasonable

inferences from it in a light most favorable to Jackson, see Johnson v. Blaukat, 453

F.3d 1108, 1112 (8th Cir. 2006), we conclude that summary judgment was properly

granted on the basis of qualified immunity, see Holt v. Dunn, 741 F.2d 169, 170 (8th

Cir. 1984) (per curiam) (“qualified immunity protects court reporters who act pursuant

to their lawful authority and follow in good faith the instructions or rules of the

court”); see also Smith v. Tandy, 897 F.2d 355, 355-56 (8th Cir. 1990) (per curiam)

(upholding district court’s grant of summary judgment on grounds of qualified

immunity in suit against, inter alia, court reporter for omissions in trial transcript).2

The judgment is affirmed, and Jackson’s motion for oral argument is denied.

______________________________
Table of Contents

Exhibit 4.10

[THE COCA-COLA COMPANY LETTERHEAD]

January 1, 2007

Embotelladora Central, S.A. 
Republica de Guatemala

Dear Sirs:

In regards to the Bottler Agreement in force and effect since March 18, 2000 (the Agreement) entered into between you and The Coca-Cola Company (the Company), we inform you that a new bottler agreement is in the final stages
of discussion and approval among the parties, which we estimate will be executed towards the middle of June 2007, hereby the Agreement is temporarily extended from January 1, 2007 until:

June 30, 2007

With the exception of said extension, all the terms and conditions of the Agreement will continue to be fully valid and up until the expiration of said additional term, said Agreement will expire and the Bottler will no longer have the right to
claim a tacit renewal of the aforementioned.





| |  |                                                   
| |  | --------------------------------------------------
| |  | Sincerely,                                        
| |  |                                                   
| |  | THE COCA-COLA COMPANY                             
| |  |                                                   
| |  |                                                   
| |  |                                                   
| |  | __/s/___________________
Authorized Representative

Accepted by:
EMBOTELLADORA CENTRAL, S.A.

__/s/___________________ Authorized Representative

---
1 Juniper	Unmanned	Inc.

John S. Duncan

UAS Integration Office

Federal Aviation Administration

800 Independence Avenue SW

Washington, DC 2059

12/18/2015

Subject: Docket FAA-2015-2487-0001, Petition for Amendment under Exemption No. 

13671.

Juniper Unmanned, Inc. was granted FAA exemption No. 13671 on November 18, 2015

allowing the use of specified unmanned aircraft for commercial purposes. This petition 

for amendment is Juniper Unmanned, Inc. seeking to add additional aircraft to their 

existing exemption. The requested aircraft are: DJI’s Phantom 3, Phantom 3 

Professional and Inspire; Trimble’s UX5, UX5 HP and ZX5; and Pulse Aerospace’s Vapor 

35 and Vapor 55.

Granting this amendment would not adversely affect safety. The FAA has concluded in

exemption number 11238A, 11110, 11110A, 11110B, and 12062 that the above 

requested aircraft provide a level of safety that is equal to, or greater than, that 

provided by the rule from which exemption is sought. The general reasoning is that the 

operations that would be conducted by these systems would otherwise be conducted by 

heavy, fuelled, manned aircraft which is incredibly hazardous comparably. 

The addition of the above specified aircraft would be in the public interest primarily 

because it will enhance Juniper Unmanned’s primary objective of providing a functional 

and safe sUAS operations. This amendment would allow Juniper Unmanned to provide 

a comprehensive training, repair/service, and testing program for its customers who 

operate, or seek to operate, the DJI Phantom 3, the DJI Inspire, the Trimble UX5, UX5 

HP, ZX5, the Pulse Aerospace Vapor 35 and Vapor 55.

Juniper Unmanned, Inc. will comply with all conditions and limitations outlined in 

exemption number 13671 with the exception of number 1 which will need to include the 

newly approved aircraft. The operating documents will be sent separately to the FAA at 

333exemptions@faa.gov. These will also be added to the list of documents in the 

current exemption.

Juniper Unmanned, Inc. hopes to expedite the approval of this amendment and, 

therefore, asks that it not be published in the Federal Register. This requested 

amendment would not set any precedent nor raise any novel issue. We ask that no 

public notice or vote be necessary.
2 Juniper	Unmanned	Inc.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Jeff Cozart, CEO

3490 Parfet St,

Wheat Ridge, CO 80033

Phone: 303-907-6163

Jeff.cozart@juniperunmanned.com
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 MM2 Group, Inc. ("the Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("the Report"), I, Mark Meller,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, 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 the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


                                         Date: May 21, 2007

                                         By /s/ Mark Meller
                                         ---------------------
                                         Mark Meller
                                         President, Chief Executive Officer and
                                         Principal Accounting Officer
EXHIBIT 32.01
***CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER***
     I, Bruce Cleland, the Chief Executive Officer of Campbell & Company, Inc. as generalpartner of Campbell Strategic Allocation Fund, L.P., certify that (i) the Form 10K for the yearended December 31, 2004 of Campbell Strategic Allocation Fund, L.P. fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) theinformation contained in the Form 10K for the year ended December 31, 2004 fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Campbell StrategicAllocation Fund, L.P.       CAMPBELL STRATEGIC ALLOCATION FUND, L.P.  By: Campbell & Company, Inc., general partner      By: /s/ Bruce L. Cleland       Bruce L. Cleland   Chief Executive Officer   March 29, 2005
E 4
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 Landmark Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Patrick L. Alexander, Chief 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 material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.





/s/ Patrick L. AlexanderPatrick L. AlexanderChief Executive OfficerMay 12, 2011
EX-10.1






SECOND AMENDMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




THIS SECOND AMENDMENT (this “Amendment”), made as of 17th day of January, 2012 and
effective as of December 31, 2011, of the Employment Agreement, dated as of May 28, 2006 and as
amended and restated as of December 17, 2008, and as further amended by First Amendment of
Employment Agreement made as July 19, 2011 (as amended, the “Original Agreement”), by and
between Loral Space & Communications, Inc., a Delaware corporation (hereinafter referred to as the
“Company”) and Michael B. Targoff (the “Executive”);



W I T N E S S E T H:




WHEREAS, Executive has been employed by the Company pursuant to the Original Agreement through the
end of its employment term on December 31, 2011 and thereafter, at will;



WHEREAS, the Company desires to continue to employ Executive subject to the terms of the Original
Agreement retroactive to the expiration of the employment term thereunder, as modified by this
Amendment, and Executive desires to enter into this Amendment and to accept such continued
employment, subject to the terms and provisions of the Original Agreement as modified by this
Amendment.



NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and mutual covenants contained herein and for
other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are mutually
acknowledged, the Company and the Executive hereby amend the Original Agreement, effective as of
December 31, 2011, as follows:



1. Section 2 of the Original Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety
as follows:



The term of Executive’s employment under this Agreement shall begin as of
March 1, 2006, and, unless sooner terminated as provided in Section 6, shall
conclude on December 31, 2012 (the “Term”).



2. The first sentence of Section 4(a) of the Original Agreement is hereby amended and
restated in its entirety as follows:



In consideration of the services rendered by the Executive under this
Agreement, the Company shall pay the Executive a base salary (the “Base
Salary”) at the rate of $950,000 per calendar year for calendar years prior
to 2011, at the rate of $1,094,525 per calendar year for calendar year 2011,
and for calendar years 2012 and thereafter, at the rate of $1,127,361 per
calendar year.



3. Except as otherwise set forth herein, the Original Agreement (and, for the avoidance of
doubt, Schedule I thereto) shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.



1




LORAL SPACE & COMMUNICATIONS INC.




By: /s/ Avi Katz

Name: Avi Katz

Title: Senior Vice President, General Counsel

and Secretary





MICHAEL B. TARGOFF




/s/ Michael B. Targoff



LORAL HOLDINGS CORPORATION (solely for purposes of Section 14(m) of the Original Agreement)



By: By: /s/ Avi Katz

Name: Avi Katz

Title: Senior Vice President and Secretary







SPACE SYSTEMS/LORAL, INC. (solely for purposes of Section 14(m) of the Original Agreement)



By: By: /s/ Avi Katz

Name: Avi Katz

Title: Senior Vice President and Secretary





2
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FRANCISCO DUENAS-QUINTERO,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

SHARON BLACKETTER,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 08-36004

D.C. No. 6:06-cv-01568-TMC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Thomas M. Coffin, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 25, 2010** 

Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Oregon state prisoner Francisco Duenas-Quintero appeals from the district

court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

FILED

JUN 15 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-36004

Duenas-Quintero contends his trial and appellate counsel rendered

ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to object, at trial or contest on appeal, to

judicial fact finding that led to a higher criminal history category and a higher

sentence. Because the sentencing judge was permitted under Oregon law to make

the findings that Duenas-Quintero complains of, counsel’s failure to object did not

amount to deficient performance. Therefore, the Oregon court’s rejection of this

claim was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly

established Supreme Court law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); see also Strickland v.

Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984).

As Duenas-Quintero acknowledges, his counsel did not render ineffective

assistance by failing to object to factual findings used to impose consecutive

sentences. See Oregon v. Ice, 129 S.Ct. 711, 714-15 (2009).

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 129 (Friday, September 21, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H6235]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                      ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER

  The SPEAKER. The Chair will entertain up to five 1-minute requests on 
each side of the aisle.

                          ____________________
```