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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          28,651
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  674,699
<ALLOWANCES>                                    22,518
<INVENTORY>                                    869,008
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,560,029
<PP&E>                                       3,687,742
<DEPRECIATION>                                 836,701
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,415,368
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,280,445
<BONDS>                                      1,150,267
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,970,718
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,415,368
<SALES>                                      5,677,583
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,715,019
<CGS>                                        5,328,749
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,443,029
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 6,025
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              49,605
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                222,025
<INCOME-TAX>                                    82,149
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            139,876
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   139,876
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofApex Silver Mines Limited (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter endedMarch 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), the undersigned hereby certifies, 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 therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

(2) The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultof operations of the Company.

 

 
| \s\ Jeffrey G. Clevenger              |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|
| Jeffrey G. Clevenger                  |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |
| May 9, 2006                           |
|                                  |
|                                  |
| \s\ Mark A. Lettes                    |   |
| Mark A. Lettes                        |
| Chief Financial Officer               |
| May 9, 2006                           |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 hasbeen provided to Apex Silver Mines Limited and will be retained by Apex SilverMines Limited and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 

----
Exhibit 99.1


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

     This  Certification  is intended to accompany the  Quarterly  Report of SVB
Financial Services, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March
31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission  (the  "Report"),
and is given solely for the purpose of satisfying the  requirements of 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002.  To the best of their  knowledge,  the  undersigned,  in their  respective
capacities as set forth below, hereby certify 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 operation of
          the Company.










/s/ Robert P. Corcoran
-------------------------------------------
Robert P. Corcoran, Chief Executive Officer         Date: May  9, 2003

/s/ Keith B. McCarthy
--------------------------------------------
Keith B. McCarthy, Chief Financial Officer          Date:   May 9, 2003








A signed  original  of this  written  statement  required  by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to SVB Financial Services, Inc. and
will be retained by the Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>5
<LEGEND>

The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the balance
sheet and statement of operations and is qualified in its entirety to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                              JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          7,022
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  49,243
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (3,894)
<INVENTORY>                                64,128<F1>
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               79,478
<PP&E>                                        198,288
<DEPRECIATION>                               (32,474)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                286,207
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          42,082
<BONDS>                                   223,818<F2>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          51,581
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                          146
<OTHER-SE>                               (31,420)<F3>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  286,207
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              158,390
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              153,936
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             11,494
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (7,274)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (2,837)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (4,437)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (4,437)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (1.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (1.07)

<FN>
  <F1>Includes  the  following  assets:  prepaid  expenses and other of $20,813,
    deferred income taxes--current of $2,400,  deferred income  taxes--long-term
    of  $13,944,  restricted  cash  of  $2,726,  deferred  financing  and  other
    non-current  assets,  net,  of  $14,258,  note  receivable  $7,487 and other
    assets, net, of $2,500.
  <F2>Includes the following long-term  liabilities:  deferred income of $2,170,
    capital lease obligation of $49,376, and long-term debt of $172,272.
  <F3>Includes the following  equity  accounts:  additional  paid-in  capital of
    $195,288 treasury stock of ($183,746) and acccumulated deficit of ($42,962).
</FN>

</TABLE>
#### WOODMAN v. STATE.

No. 16339.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 7, 1934.

McConnell *&*Morison, of Fort Worth, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

The offense is robbery; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for five years.

On the 20th of February, 1932, a robbery took place at the Cascade Laundry in the city of Fort Worth, Tex., and about $395 were taken. There were four participants who co-operated .in committing the offense. A pistol was exhibited and the money delivered upon a threat of death. The parties came in an automobile., Two men entered the building and two remained on the outside. The appellant was definitely identified by the testimony of the witness Box, from whose immediate possession the property was taken. The appellant did not testify, but by other witnesses presented the theory of alibi and mistaken identity. A rehearsal of the testimony in detail is deemed unnecessary. Four witnesses testified in behalf of the appellant tending to support his theory. Three witnesses testified in rebuttal in behalf of the state. It was conceded by the appellant’s witnesses that he was in the automobile with other participants in the robbery, though one witness claimed that he entered the car after the robbery as a passenger and had no part in the offense. The appellant was arrested while in the car which was identified as the one used in connection with the robbery. He was armed and was in company with other persons who were identified as having committed the robbery. His defense of alibi was controverted. The sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction is not open to serious question.

No questions of law are presented for review. The guilt or innocence of the accused was simply a jury question. Their finding' under the circumstances is binding upon this court, and it therefore becomes its duty to affirm the judgment, which is accordingly ordered.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ralph Brown, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Grajales, J.), rendered November 28, 1988, convicting him of grand larceny in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the prosecutor’s cross-examination of him improperly suggested to the jury that the defendant had an obligation to call certain witnesses but failed to do so has not been preserved for our review since the defendant failed to specifically raise this objection in the trial court *(see, People v Bynum,*70 NY2d 858; *People v Udzinski,*146 AD2d 245). Under the circumstances of this case, we decline to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction to reach this issue. Kooper, J. P., Eiber, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 235 (Wednesday, December 6, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 76311]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-31084]


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

NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING COMMISSION


Fee Rates

AGENCY: National Indian Gaming Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given, pursuant to 25 CFR 514.1(a)(3), that 
the National Indian Gaming Commission has adopted final annual fee 
rates of 0.00% for tier 1 and 0.09% (.0009) for tier 2 for calendar 
year 2000. These rates shall apply to all assessable gross revenues 
from each gaming operation under the jurisdiction of the Commission.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bobby Gordon, National Indian Gaming 
Commission, 1441 L Street, NW., Suite 9100, Washington, DC 20005; 
telephone 202/632-7003; fax 202/632-7066 (these are not toll-free 
numbers).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act established 
the National Indian Gaming Commission which is charged with, among 
other things, regulating gaming on Indian lands.
    The regulations of the Commission (25 CFR part 514), as amended, 
provide for a system of fee assessment and payment that is self-
administered by gaming operations. Pursuant to those regulations, the 
Commission is required to adopt and communicate assessment rates; the 
gaming operations are required to apply those rates to their revenues, 
compute the fees to be paid, report the revenues, and remit the fees to 
the Commission on a quarterly basis.
    The regulations of the Commission and the rate being finalized 
today are effective for calendar year 2000.

Montie R. Deer,
Chairman, National Indian Gaming Commission.
[FR Doc. 00-31084 Filed 12-5-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7565-01-M
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JOSEPH SHERMAN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-3056

[October 25, 2018]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Indian River County; Cynthia L. Cox, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 312010CF001593A.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Narine N. Austin, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

TAYLOR, DAMOORGIAN and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 201 1 - 0 81 1 SNPRM **Directorate ID:** 

### 201 1 - CE - 0 2 6 - AD Originating Office Tracking No.: 

### NO COMMENTS RECEIVED

– If this box is checked, no s ignatures are required. 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, list latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the fol lowing changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because

### Page 2 of 3

**For additional issues, double -**  **click here** 

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.:
**ASE Date** 

**Branch Manager Date**
#### Ex parte MITCHELL.

No. 16322.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 28, 1934.

O. S. Farmer and Joe W. Taylor, both of Waco, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

LATTIMORE, Judge.

The state’s motion for rehearing exhibits a copy of the judgment of conviction in appellant’s main case, carrying a penalty of ninety-nine years in the penitentiary. The motion for rehearing seeks to have the original opinion herein withdrawn and the appeal dismissed upon the ground that appellant’s conviction carrying a penalty of ninety-nine years, would render ineffective the judgment of this court granting bail. The judgment in the main ease has been this day affirmed.. See Mitchell v. State (Tex. Cr. App., No. 16516)-S.W.(2d) — ,1 this day handed down. In the light of the disposition of the main case, this court would be powerless to grant bail under appellant’s application in the matter before us. As said by this court in Ex parte Crow, 89 Tex. Or. R. 142, 230 S. W. 147: “The writ of habeas corpus is only used for the purpose of relieving from illegal restraint.” Ex parte Coup-land, 26 Tex. 386, and Ex parte Trader, 24 Tex. App. 393, 6 S. W. 533, are cited. This court being powerless to grant bail, the reversal or affirmance of the judgment in appellant’s habeas corpus appeal would be a useless thing.

For the reasons indicated we are of opinion that the appeal herein should be dismissed, .and it is accordingly so ordered, and the opinion heretofore rendered in this case will be withdrawn.

1

 Rehearing pending.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)



The undersigned executive officer of ESB Financial Corporation (the Registrant)
hereby certifies that the Registrants Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained therein fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.



By:

/s/ Charlotte A. ZuschlagCharlotte A. ZuschlagPresident and Chief Executive Officer




Date: March 12, 2004



Note: A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to ESB Financial Corporation and will be retained by ESB Financial Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


             REPORT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS ON SCHEDULE
             ----------------------------------------------------



We have audited in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, the
consolidated financial statements of Information Management Associates, Inc.
included in this Form 10-K and have issued our report thereon dated March 3,
1999. Our audit was made for the purpose of forming an opinion on the basic
financial statements taken as a whole. The schedule listed in the index to
consolidated financial statements is the responsibility of the Company's
management and is presented for purposes of complying with the Securities and
Exchange Commissions rules and is not part of the basic financial statements.
This schedule has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit
of the basic financial statements and, in our opinion, fairly states in all
material respects the financial data required to be set forth therein in
relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole.


                                              ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP



Hartford, Connecticut
March 3, 1999
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000871367
<NAME> 91B
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         165,231
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   97,159
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               262,390
<PP&E>                                       9,728,987
<DEPRECIATION>                               8,171,041
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,820,336
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,255
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,802,081
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,820,336
<SALES>                                        873,012
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               884,394
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,062,299
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (177,905)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (177,905)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (177,905)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (15.66)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
In accordance with Departmental Policy, 28 CFR 50.7, 38 FR 19029, and 42 U.S.C. 9622(d), notice is hereby given that a proposed Consent Decree in                     *United States*                     v.                     *Cornell University,*                     Civ. No. 00-CV-0121 (NAM), DOJ # 90-11-2-2/3, was lodged in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York on January 21, 2000. The Consent Decree resolves the liability of defendant under section 107(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9607(a), relating to the Pollution Abatement Services Superfund Site in Oswego, New York (the “Site”).                

Under the proposed consent decree, Cornell will cash out its liability for the Site, subjects to reopeners, by paying to the United States the sum of $30,000 in partial reimbursement of EPA's past response costs and paying $335,500 toward future operable unit 3 (“OU3”) Site costs to the responsible parties who are performing OU3 under an earlier consent decree. In exchange for the work and payment of response costs, Defendants will receive a covenant not to sue for response actions at the Site subject to certain reservations of rights.

                    The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication, written comments relating to the proposed Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20530, and should refer to                     *United States*                     v.                     *Cornell University,*                     Civ. No. 00-CV-0121 (NAM), DOJ # 90-11-2-2/3.                

The proposed Consent Decree may be examined at the Office of the United States Attorney, Northern District of New York, James Foley U.S. Courthouse, 445 Broadway, Room 231, Albany, New York 12207; and at the Region II Office of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10278. Copies of the Consent Decree may be obtained by mail from the consent Decree Library, United States Department of Justice, PO Box 7611 Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044, (202) 514-1547. In requesting a copy, please enclose a check in the amount of $5.25 (25 cents per page reproduction costs) payable to the Consent Decree Library.

Joel M. Gross,

Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division.

[FR Doc. 00-3114  Filed 2-9-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-15-M