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

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           10265
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     121156
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           15955
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             16181
<LOANS>                                         224900
<ALLOWANCE>                                       4134
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  388713
<DEPOSITS>                                      263908
<SHORT-TERM>                                     19891
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               3380
<LONG-TERM>                                      69635
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          1321
<OTHER-SE>                                       30578
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  388713
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  19475
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 8873
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 28348
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               10063
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               14004
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            14344
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                     1055
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 799
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   8732
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   7366
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        5945
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      5945
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.25
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.37
<LOANS-NON>                                       1515
<LOANS-PAST>                                        44
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                   3693
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  3153
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       90
<RECOVERIES>                                        16
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 4134
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                              4134
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                           2943
        


</TABLE>
#### Ex parte Lacey WILLIAMS.

No. 27678.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 26, 1955.

*372• John R. Francis, W. E. Martin, Houston, for appellant.

Dan Walton, Dist. Atty., Eugene Brady, Thomas D. White, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Appellant was convicted under an information alleging, in three separate counts, a violation, upon three different occasions, of the policy-game statute, Art. 642c, Vernon’s P.C. In addition to a fine, the punishment assessed by the jury’s verdict was six months’ confinement in jail under each count. '

Upon that verdict, the trial court (County Court at Law No. 3, of Harris County) duly entered judgment finding appellant guilty of the three separate offenses and fixed the term of. confinement in jail at eighteen -months.

An appeal was duly perfected to this court from that judgment, which was affirmed by this court, 159 Tex.Cr.R. 487, 264 S.W.2d 731.

Upon that appeal, appellant made no attack upon the. validity of the judgment fixing his punishment at confinement in jail for a period of eighteen months.

On the 12th day of August, 1954, appellant. was committed to jail to serve the eighteen-month jail penalty, and'since that date has been continuously confined in jail serving that sentence.

By writ of habeas corpus before the judge of the County Court at Law No. 3, of Harris County, appellant attacks the validity of the judgment of conviction and insists that the. trial court was without authority to cumulate the jail penalty assessed under each count and that, having served more than six months in jail, she has fully satisfied the ’ punishment assessed by the jury and is entitled' to be discharged from confinement in jail under the judgment.

After the hearing, the relief prayed for was refused. This appeal followed.

The effect to be given to the trial court’s judgment was that he cumulated the jail penalty. This he was authorized to do by Art. 774, C.C.P. See Ex parte Banks, 41 Tex.Cr.R. 201, 53 S.W. 688; Abston v. State, 158 Tex.Cr.R. 88, 253 S.W.2d 41; Palma v. State, 159 Tex.Cr.R. 218, 262 S.W.2d 486.

Moreover, if the judgment of the trial court was subject to some defect, appellant should" have complained 'thereof when the case was before Us upon appeal.

The judgment of the-trial court is affirmed.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2008 (the Report) of OPNET Technologies, Inc.
(the Company), I, Mel F. Wesley, Vice President and Chief Financial 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:



| | (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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |     |  |                                           
|----------------------- |  | --- |  | ------------------------------------------
|Dated: February 5, 2009 |  | By: |  | /S/    MEL F.
WESLEY                      
|                        |  |     |  | Mel F. Wesley                             
|                        |  |     |  | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
1

The Honorable Charles A. Shaw, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1776

___________

Sally Spaulding, formerly known as *

Sally Tobelmann, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Department of Health and Human *

Services, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Defendant, *

*

Social Security Administration, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: August 4, 2005

Filed: August 9, 2005

___________

Before COLLOTON, HANSEN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Sally Spaulding appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary

judgment, and its adverse grant of a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion,
-2-

in her action brought under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehab Act). Having

conducted de novo review, see Peebles v. Potter, 354 F.3d 761, 765 (8th Cir. 2004)

(summary judgment standard of review); Ferris, Baker Watts, Inc. v. Ernst & Young,

LLP, 395 F.3d 851, 853 (8th Cir. 2005) (Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal standard of review),

we agree with the district court that Spaulding’s retaliation claims were not

administratively exhausted, see Wallin v. Minn. Dep’t of Corr., 153 F.3d 681, 688

(8th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1004 (1999); and that the Social Security

Administration met its duty under the Rehab Act by restructuring Spaulding’s job,

see Peebles, 354 F.3d at 767. Spaulding cannot seek reversal by asserting ineffective

assistance of counsel. See Glick v. Henderson, 855 F.2d 536, 541 (8th Cir. 1988)

(defendant has no constitutional or statutory right to effective assistance of counsel

in civil case). 

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1496 

To amend title 31, United States Code, to reform the manner in which 

the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is audited by 

the Comptroller General of the United States and the manner in which 

such audits are reported, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 12, 2011 

Mr. PAUL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To amend title 31, United States Code, to reform the manner 

in which the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System is audited by the Comptroller General of the 

United States and the manner in which such audits 

are reported, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Reserve 

5 Transparency Act’’. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1496 IH

1 SEC. 2. AUDIT REFORM AND TRANSPARENCY FOR THE 

2 BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RE3 SERVE SYSTEM. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (b) of section 714 of 

5 title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking all 

6 after ‘‘in writing.’’. 

7 (b) REPEAL OF CERTAIN LIMITATIONS.—Section 

8 714 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by strik9 ing subsection (f). 

10 (c) AUDIT.—Section 714 of title 31, United States 

11 Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 

12 subsection: 

13 ‘‘(f) AUDIT AND REPORT OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE

14 SYSTEM.— 

15 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—An audit of the Board of 

16 Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the 

17 Federal reserve banks under subsection (b) shall be 

18 completed within 12 months of the enactment of the 

19 Federal Reserve Transparency Act. 

20 ‘‘(2) REPORT.— 

21 ‘‘(A) REQUIRED.—A report on the audit 

22 referred to in paragraph (1) shall be submitted 

23 by the Comptroller General to the Congress be24 fore the end of the 90-day period beginning on 

25 the date on which such audit is completed and 

26 made available to the Speaker of the House of 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1496 IH

1 Representatives, the majority and minority 

2 leaders of the House of Representatives, the 

3 majority and minority leaders of the Senate, the 

4 Chairman and Ranking Member of the com5 mittee and each subcommittee of jurisdiction in 

6 the House of Representatives and the Senate, 

7 and any other Member of Congress who re8 quests it. 

9 ‘‘(B) CONTENTS.—The report under sub10 paragraph (A) shall include a detailed descrip11 tion of the findings and conclusion of the 

12 Comptroller General with respect to the audit 

13 that is the subject of the report. 

14 ‘‘(3) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this sub15 section shall be construed to limit the ability of the 

16 Government Accountability Office to perform addi17 tional audits of the Board of Governors of the Fed18 eral Reserve System or of the Federal reserve 

19 banks.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
# CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Bondy Tan,
President, Secretary and Treasurer of Global Innovative Systems, Inc., hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|(1) | the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Global Innovative Systems, Inc. for the
          period ended December 31, 2004 (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 Global Innovative
          Systems, Inc.
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: February 14, 2005

/s/ Bondy TanBondy TanPresident, Secretary and
Treasurer(Principal Executive Officer, Principal FinancialOfficer and Principal
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 Global Innovative
Systems, Inc. and will be retained by Global Innovative Systems, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-31259 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JAMES R. ORGERON,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 99-CR-96-ALL-C

- - - - - - - - - - April 19, 2001

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

James R. Orgeron appeals from the jur y conviction under 18

U.S.C. § 228 fo r willful failure to pay child support. Orgeron

argue s that the evidence is insufficient to prove beyond a

reasonable doubt that he willfully failed to pay child support

because his failure to make partial payments did not adequately

establish willfulness.

Orgeron’s timely motion pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(c) is

sufficient to preserve his insufficiency argumen t for appellate

review. U nited States v. Allison

, 616 F.2d 779, 784 (5th Cir.No. 99-31259

-2-

1980). This court reviews the district court’s denial of a motion

for judgment of acquittal de novo

. U nited States v. Ferguson

, 211

F.3d 878, 882 (5th Cir.), cert. denied

, 121 S. Ct. 258 (2000). In

evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, the court “must

determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable

to the verdict and drawing all reas onable inferences from the

evidence in support of the verdict, a rational trier of fact could

have found that the evidence established the essential elements of

the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id.

We have reviewed the record and hold that a reasonable trier

of fact could find that the evidence establishes beyond a

reasonable doubt that Orgeron knew of the legal duty to pay child

support, that he could have paid some amo unt toward his past due

support obligation, and that he willfully chose not to pay

anything. U nited States v. Mathes

, 151 F.3d 251, 253-54 (5th Cir.

1998). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.
|  | 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 theCompany. |
|--|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: March 24, 2009                  |               |
|--------------------------------------------|--------------------|
|                                       |               |
| /s/      James E. Horswill                 |     |
| James E. Horswill                          |               |
| President      and Chief Financial Officer |               |

----
In this SIP revision Delaware addresses those requirements of

Section

1 1O(a)(2)(A)-(M) of the CM which have not been

specifically addressed in other SIP revisions. It isa compila

tion of certain elements that deschbe how Del4ware demon

strates how.the eight-hour ozone and in some cases the fine

particulate (PM2.5) NAAQS are being implemehted, main

tained and enforced. The elements of this SIP: revision, once

approved by EPA, will providea federally enforàeable written

confirmation of how Delaware will continue to comply with

the Section 11 0(a)(2) requirements of the CA.

The public headng will be held Wednesday, December12,

2007, beginning at 6:00 p.m. in the Pdscilla Building Confer

ence Room, 156 South State Street, Dover, DE: 19901.

The proposed revision may be inspected at the department’s

offices located at 156 S. State Street, Dover add 715 Grantham Lane, New Castle or viewed on the Department’s web

site at htto://www.awm.delaware.aov/lnfo/Reas/AQMPIan

sReos.htm. For additional.information, please contact Ron

Amirikian in Dover at (302) 739-9402.

Statements and testimony may be presented either raIly or in

writing at the public hearing. Interested parties may submit

comments in writing to: Ron Amirikian, DNREC Air Quality

Management Section, 156 South State Street, Dover, Dela

ware 19901.

1

ONREC

-Air Quality Management Section

156 South State Street

Dover, DE 19901

THIS IS THE TIME THIS NOTICE WILL APPEAR.

248291 DSN 11/11/07

LI ,

0

0

..

0

C,,

C’)

C) r

C) 01

1’ ONREC

- Air QuaIit Management Section -.

IEGALNOTICE

PUBLIC HEARING

The Department of Natural Resources and Envirnmental Con

trol(DNREC) will conduct

a public hearing

o

a propose’d

revision to the State Implementation Plan (SlF”) for the At-.

tainment and Maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality

for Ozone and Fine Particulate Matter (“PM2.5). The pur-.

pose of the SIP revision is to detail how Delaware meets all

of the necessary implementation, maintenance and enforce

ment measures required by Clean Air Act (CAA)

§11 0(a)(2).

CD

CD

Cu
EXHIBIT 32.2

STATEMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
BY PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


      I, O'Donnell Iselin II, herby certify, to my
knowledge, that:

      1. the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Cadiz Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the
"Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

      2. the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of Cadiz Inc.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this
Statement as of the date first written above.

Dated: March 16, 2006


                              /s/ O'Donnell Iselin II
                              -------------------------------------
                              O'Donnell Iselin II
                              Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
Exhibit32.1

 

Certification of CEO Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 

of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

Pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned certifies that (1) this AnnualReport of Capital City Bank Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for theyear ended December 31, 2017, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (this “Report”), fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended, and (2) the information contained in this Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition of the Company and its resultsof operations as of and for the periods covered therein.

 

 

 

/s/ William G.Smith, Jr.                                      

William G. Smith,Jr.

Chairman, Presidentand

Chief ExecutiveOfficer

 

Date: March 5, 2018

 

 

----
**AMENDMENT      TO EXECUTIVE**

**ENGAGEMENT      AGREEMENT**

*Base      Fee*

|   | COMPANY:                                    |                                             |
|--------|---------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                        |                                             |
|   | CAPITAL                    GOLD CORPORATION |                                             |
|   |                                        |                                             |   |
|   |                                        |                                             |   |
|   | By:                                         | s/Gifford                    A. Dieterle         |   |
|   |                                        | Gifford                    A Dieterle, President |   |
|   |                                        |                                             |   |
|   |                                        |                                             |   |
|   | EXECUTIVE:                                  |                                             |
|   |                                        |                                             |
|   |                                        |                                             |
|   | s/Christopher                    Chipman    |                                             |
|   | Christopher                    M. Chipman   |                                             |

----
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

No

. 11

- 869 C

(Filed : March 21, 2014 )

********** **************************** *

*

CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO.

, et al.

, *

*

Plaintiff s

, *

*

v. *

*

THE UNITED STATES, *

*

Defendant

. *

*

********** **************************** *

ORDER AMENDING JUDGMENT

On March 19

, 2014, counsel for the Plaintiff s filed a motion to alter or amend the

Court’s March 13, 2014 Judgment that Plaintiffs recover $103,748,230.14 from the

United States. (Dkt. No. 61). Counsel for the Government concurs with the motion

. By

agreement of the parties, the Court here by adopts the following two adjustments.

First, in its March 10, 2014 opinion, t he Court ruled that Plaintiff s ’ damages claim

of $104,991,508 should be reduced by $162,927 for indirect costs identified by the

G overnment’s expert that are attributable to direct costs that had been voluntarily

removed from the claim by Plaintiffs

. (Dkt. No. 60). However, the Plaintiffs’ adjusted

claim amount of $104,991,508 already reflected the voluntary deduction of this amoun t.

The Judgment is corrected so that only one deduction is taken.

Second, the Court removed $107,452 in indirect costs from Plaintiffs’ damages

calculation when it denied Plaintiffs’ c laim for the Brunswick Computer System

Replacement. However, the G ov ernm ent’s expert estimated indirect costs related to the

computer system upgrade to be $237,877. Plaintiffs do not dispute this calculation.

Therefo re, Plaintiffs ’ claim is reduced by an additional $130,425.- 2

-

Accordingly, the Court increases Plaintiffs’ damages award by the net difference

o f these adjustments ($162,927

− $130,425 = $32,502), to $103,780,732.14. The Clerk is

directed to enter an amended judgment

.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Thomas C. Wheeler

THOMAS C. WHEELER

Judge