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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          25,338
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   49,913
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    414,246
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                36,334
<PP&E>                                       2,617,616
<DEPRECIATION>                                 916,229
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,227,218
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          800,334
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       354,407
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,072,477
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,227,218
<SALES>                                      1,466,702
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,466,702
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,243,059
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              31,951
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (759,909)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (93,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (666,909)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (666,909)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.19)
        

</TABLE>
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 Annual Report of Green Technology Solutions, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John Shearer, Sole Member of the Board of Directors, Principal Executive Officer and Principal 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 aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:  April 15, 2011





/s/ John ShearerJohn ShearerSole Director and CEO(Principal Executive, Accounting andFinancial Officer)
115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 254 

AN ACT 

To amend the Native American Programs Act of 1974 to 

provide flexibility and reauthorization to ensure the survival and continuing vitality of Native American languages. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

†S 254 ES

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Esther Martinez Na3 tive American Languages Preservation Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. NATIVE AMERICAN LANGUAGES GRANT PROGRAM. 

5 Section 803C of the Native American Programs Act 

6 of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 2991b–3) is amended— 

7 (1) in subsection (b)(7)— 

8 (A) in subparagraph (A)(i), by striking 

9 ‘‘10’’ and inserting ‘‘5’’; and 

10 (B) in subparagraph (B)(i), by striking 

11 ‘‘15’’ and inserting ‘‘10’’; and 

12 (2) in subsection (e)(2)— 

13 (A) by striking ‘‘or 3-year basis’’ and in14 serting ‘‘3-year, 4-year, or 5-year basis’’; and 

15 (B) by inserting ‘‘, 4-year, or 5-year’’ after 

16 ‘‘on a 3-year’’. 

17 SEC. 3. REAUTHORIZATION OF NATIVE AMERICAN LAN18 GUAGES PROGRAM. 

19 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 816(e) of the Native 

20 American Programs Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 2992d(e)) is 

21 amended by striking ‘‘such sums’’ and all that follows 

22 through the period at the end and inserting ‘‘$13,000,000 

23 for each of fiscal years 2019 through 2023.’’. 

24 (b) TECHNICAL CORRECTION.—Section 816 of the 

25 Native American Programs Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 

26 2992d) is amended in subsections (a) and (b) by striking 
3 

†S 254 ES

1 ‘‘subsection (e)’’ each place it appears and inserting ‘‘sub2 section (d)’’. 

Passed the Senate November 29, 2017. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 
115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 254 

AN ACT 

To amend the Native American Programs Act of 

tive American languages. ensure the survival and continuing vitality of Na1974 to provide flexibility and reauthorization to
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819

DCN: SE03539
THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION (CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
FOURTH DIVISION

ELLINGTON, P. J.,

BRANCH and MERCIER, JJ.

NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be

physically received in our clerk’s office within ten

days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed.

http://www.gaappeals.us/rules

February 22, 2018

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia

A16A1318. SUNTRUST BANK v. LILLISTON et al.

BRANCH, Judge.

In Suntrust Bank v. Lilliston, 338 Ga. App. 738 (791 SE2d 614) (2016), this

Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling that the appellant had waived its right to

arbitration in a renewed action by acting inconsistently with that right in the original

action. The Supreme Court of Georgia granted certiorari and reversed our decision.

See Suntrust Bank v. Lilliston, _ Ga. _ (Case No. S17G0433, decided Jan. 29, 2018).

We therefore vacate our previous opinion, adopt the decision of the Supreme Court

as our own, and reverse the judgment below.

Judgment reversed. Ellington, P. J., and Mercier, J., concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 96-7679 CURT N. PRICE, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frank A. Kaufman, Senior District Judge. (CR-91-1-K, CA-96-645-K) Submitted: January 9, 1997 Decided: January 29, 1997 Before HALL and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________ Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Curt N. Price, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Charles Kay, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended byAntiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Specifically, we find that Appellant's conviction, on a guilty plea, under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (1994), is proper under the "carry" prong of that statute. See Bailey v. United States , ___ U.S. ___, 64 U.S.L.W. 4039 (U.S. Dec. 6, 1995) (94-7448, 94-7492). In addition, the record does not support Appellant's claim that he was promised a Fed. R. Crim. P. 35 motion by the Government. We also find that because United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1(b)(Nov. 1992), did not become effective until after the date of Appellant's sentencing, and because the amendment is not retroactive under USSG § 1B1.10, Appellant's claim that he is entitled to a third level of reduction for acceptance of res ponsibility is without merit. Finally, because none of the issues Appellant raised have merit, we find that Appellant has not demonstrated any attorney error required by Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 694 (1984), and therefore cannot meet his burden under Hill v. Lockhart , 474 U.S. 52, 58-59 (1985), n ecessary to obtain relief from his guilty plea based on ineffective assistance. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss this 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
2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF EARNINGS AND CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS FOR
THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         208,644
<SECURITIES>                                 2,241,231
<RECEIVABLES>                                  582,608
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,149,420
<PP&E>                                         109,690
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,203,536
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,178,535
<BONDS>                                        298,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           703
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,280,566
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,203,536
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,146,035
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,951,575
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                13,441
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,608
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                166,411
<INCOME-TAX>                                    66,467
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             99,944
<DISCONTINUED>                                (88,268)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,676
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.16
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

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

as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Paradise,
Inc. on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Melvin S. Gordon, as Chief Executive Officer of Paradise, Inc., certify pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 and 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 Paradise, Inc.



|                                     |  |                     
|------------------------------------ |  | --------------------
|/s/ Melvin S. Gordon                 |  | Date: March 26, 2010
|Melvin S. Gordon                     |  |                     
|Chief Executive Officer and Chairman |  |
#### LONG v. STATE.

No. 18198.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 27, 1936.

*128H. H. Flowers, of Pearsall, for appellant.

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

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Considering appellant’s motion for rehearing, we have decided to withdraw our opinion of dismissal originally entered in this case, and to consider it upon its merits.

■ Appellant was convicted for cattle theft, and given four years in the penitentiary.

The facts appear without dispute that certain calves belonging to the owner named in the indictment were stolen from his possession, and were later sold by this appellant to a Mexican named Treven-io, who testified to the purchase of said animals. Appellant's defense was that he bought the animals in question from a negro named Morse McCain. In his testimony he said that he met McCain at a point east of Lockhart, and went with McCain, Tom Chase and Louis McGee to a point where they found the cattle in question, which were loaded on a truck and taken back to Lockhart, and later in the night carried to San Antonio, and'from there to Pearsall, where they were sold to Trevenio. In rebuttal, the state introduced Morse McCain, who testified that he did not sell any cattle to appellant, and that he did not see appellant on the date of the alleged theft. This witness was corroborated by his wife, who testified for the state also. The state further introduced the witness Tom Chase, who denied having anything to do with the selling of any cattle by Morse McCain to appellant, and denied helping load any cattle in appellant’s truck. We regard the evidence as amply sufficient ■ to justify the conviction.

 Appellant has a bill of exceptions complaining of the overruling of a motion- for continuance. The diligence does not appear to be sufficient, and the court was entirely justified in concluding appellant not to be entitled to such continuance. If we understand the record, appellant’s only purpose in having the witnesses named in the continuance present would have been for impeachment, which furnishes no good ground for a continuance.

Appellant complains by another bill of exceptions of the refusal of the trial court to let him file a motion for a new trial after the expiration of the time allowed by law for such filing. An issue was made, and we think the testimony heard by the trial court justified his refusal of said motion.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7161

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DUNDRIELLE LEFRANK BLAKENEY,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:02-cr-00140-GCM-1)

Submitted: October 15, 2009 Decided: October 21, 2009

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Reita Pauline Pendry, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Dundrielle Lefrank Blakeney appeals the district
court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion

for a reduced sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. United States v. Blakeney , No.
3:02-cr-00140-GCM-1 (W.D.N.C. June 9, 2009). 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.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.9

September 27, 2002

C. David Weaver
8910 Morris Rd.
Goodels MI 48027

Dear David,

I am pleased to offer you the position of VICE PRESIDENT SALES & ENGINEERING for
the SpaceRak Division of Eugene Welding Company.

      SALARY - $92,000

      INCENTIVE COMPENSATION - (paid 1st Qtr of fiscal year and pro rata for
      less than year)

      - 20% of salary if Division is profitable

      - 25% if Division exceeds budget by 10%

      CAR ALLOWANCE - $350 per month plus fuel & oil changes.

      PAID VACATION - 4 weeks (comp time for hours over 48 per week)

      MAJOR MEDICAL & DENTAL - Teamsters Health & Welfare Plan Administered by
      Blue Cross/Blue Shield.(employee co pays 1/3 of weekly premium)

      401K PLAN - Company match of 50% up to 5% of income.

      BONUS SHORTFALL - EWCO will compensate for any difference (shortfall) in
      payout of expected Unarco 2002 bonus of $17,870.

      SIGNING BONUS - $5000 if you begin EWCO employment no later than Oct 14,
      2002.

      SEPARATION AGREEMENT - In the event of termination of employment for any
      reason other than cause (illegal or unethical conduct) you will receive 6
      months salary and medical benefits continuation.

      Please advise if this is acceptable.

      Sincerely,

      C. A. Vanella
EXHIBIT 31.2

P & F INDUSTRIES, INC.        CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I,
Joseph A. Molino, Jr., certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this Annual Report of P & F Industries, Inc. on Form 10-K (this "report") for the year ended December 31, 2003;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):



|March 29, 2004Date |  | s/JOSEPH A. MOLINO, JR.Joseph A. Molino, Jr. Principal Financial Officer
|------------------ |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION FROM THE COMPANY'S
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND
NOTES THERETO.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           6,102
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   42,303
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,038
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                60,441
<PP&E>                                          74,958
<DEPRECIATION>                                  13,320
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 130,653
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           37,572
<BONDS>                                          4,183
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           215
<OTHER-SE>                                      88,683
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   130,653
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               105,980
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   94,628
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                30,321
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,557
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 501
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (22,168)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (8,867)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (13,301)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.62)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.62)
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2691 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2691

 To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of 
  Veterans Affairs to adjudicate and pay survivor's benefits without 
    requiring the filing of a formal claim, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 9, 2015

   Mr. Ruiz introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of 
  Veterans Affairs to adjudicate and pay survivor's benefits without 
    requiring the filing of a formal claim, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Veterans' Survivors Claims 
Processing Automation Act of 2015''.

SEC. 2. EXPEDITED PAYMENT OF SURVIVOR'S BENEFITS.

    (a) In General.--Section 5101(a)(1) of title 38, United States 
Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking ``A specific'' and inserting ``(A) Except 
        as provided in subparagraph (B), a specific''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
    ``(B)(i) The Secretary may pay benefits under chapters 13 and 15 
and sections 2302, 2307, and 5121 of this title to a survivor of a 
veteran who has not filed a formal claim if the Secretary determines 
that the record contains sufficient evidence to establish the 
entitlement of the survivor to such benefits.
    ``(ii) For purposes of this subparagraph and section 5110 of this 
title, the date on which a survivor of a veteran notifies the Secretary 
of the death of the veteran shall be treated as the date of the receipt 
of the survivor's application for benefits described in clause (i).''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to claims for benefits based on a death occurring on 
or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```