alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
----

----

|                                         |
|-----------------------------------------|
|                                         |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|                                    |   | 2013 |   |   | 2012 |   |
| Assets                                  |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Investments - Interest Bearing Deposits |   |   | 2,139 |  |   |   |   | 2,831 |  |   |
| Plan Equity                             |   | $ | 2,139 |  |   |   | $ | 2,831 |  |   |

----

|                                           |
|-------------------------------------------|
|                                           |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|                                      |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                      |   | 2013 |   |   | 2012 |   |   | 2011 |   |
|                                      |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Investment Income - Interest              |   | $ | 104 |  |   |   | $ | 92 |  |   |   | $ | 138 |  |   |
| Participant Contributions                 |   |   | 500,941 |  |   |   |   | 486,430 |  |   |   |   | 561,856 |  |   |
|                                      |   |   | 501,045 |  |   |   |   | 486,522 |  |   |   |   | 561,994 |  |   |
|                                      |   |   |   |  |   |   |   |   |  |   |   |   |   |  |   |
| Withdrawals and Terminations Paid in Cash |   |   | 7,152 |  |   |   |   | 17,107 |  |   |   |   | 9,413 |  |   |
| Purchase and Distribution of Stock        |   |   | 494,585 |  |   |   |   | 468,110 |  |   |   |   | 708,891 |  |   |
|                                      |   |   | 501,737 |  |   |   |   | 485,217 |  |   |   |   | 718,304 |  |   |
|                                      |   |   |   |  |   |   |   |   |  |   |   |   |   |  |   |
| Changes in Plan Equity for the Year       |   |   | (692 | ) |   |   |   | 1,305 |  |   |   |   | (156,310 | ) |   |
|                                      |   |   |   |  |   |   |   |   |  |   |   |   |   |  |   |
| Plan Equity at Beginning of Year          |   |   | 2,831 |  |   |   |   | 1,526 |  |   |   |   | 157,836 |  |   |
|                                      |   |   |   |  |   |   |   |   |  |   |   |   |   |  |   |
| Plan Equity at End of Year                |   | $ | 2,139 |  |   |   | $ | 2,831 |  |   |   | $ | 1,526 |  |   |

----

|         |                                            |
|---------|--------------------------------------------|
| Note 1: | Summary of Significant Accounting Policies |

|         |                     |
|---------|---------------------|
| Note 2: | General Information |

----

|         |                   |
|---------|-------------------|
| Note 3: | Income Tax Status |

|         |               |
|---------|---------------|
| Note 4: | Related Party |
EXHIBIT 32.1
 
 CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In connection with the Annual Report of Medite Cancer Diagnostics, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michaela Ott, as Chief Executive 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 result of operations of the Company.
 
 By:
/s/ Michaela Ott
Dated:
August 25, 2016Michaela OttTitle:
Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)
 
 This certification is being furnished to the SEC as an exhibit to the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
 
 A signed copy of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided by the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          20,439
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   82,715
<ALLOWANCES>                                    11,162
<INVENTORY>                                      4,818
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               128,419
<PP&E>                                       4,732,189
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,073,455
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,417,086
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          178,477
<BONDS>                                      1,537,209
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,500
<COMMON>                                        43,507
<OTHER-SE>                                     346,082
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,417,086
<SALES>                                        550,899
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               837,367
<CGS>                                          217,194
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  378,809
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               238,553
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             156,272
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (63,234)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (17,768)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (45,466)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (3,246)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              (206,963)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (255,675)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (5.48)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (5.48)
<FN>
<F1>Reflects basic earnings per share.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-60409

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ROY GREEN,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No.4:93-CR-133-B-O

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

June 15, 2000

Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Roy Green, federal prisoner # 09940-042, has filed a motion

to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in the appeal of the denial of

his motion to correct his sentence, brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

§ 3742(a). That statute does not authorize a postconviction

motion challenging conviction and sentence. Green has failed to

raise any nonfrivolous issues for appeal. See United States v.

Boutwell, 896 F.2d 884, 889-90 (5th Cir. 1990)(one-judge order). 

Accordingly, his motion to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED. 
No. 99-60409

-2-

Because Green’s appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5TH

CIR. R. 42.2.
**RemedyTemp, Inc.**
**Exhibit 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**
I, Monty A. Houdeshell, certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of RemedyTemp, Inc.; 2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and
5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: February 7, 2005   /s/ Monty A. Houdeshell  Monty A. Houdeshell
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 20724 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
CARLOS TREJO

- DOMINGUEZ, also known as Carlos Dominguez Trejo, also known as Carlos Hernandez

- Herrera , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:15

- CR

- 365

- 1

Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Carlos Trejo

- Dominguez raises an argument that is now foreclosed by United States v. Gonzalez

Longoria , 831 F.3d 670 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc) , pet ition for cert. filed (Sept. 29, 2016) (No. 16

- 6259)

. Trejo also contends that the district court erred by entering judgment reflecting a conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2), but the

* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 15, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-20724 Document: 00513798330 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/15/2016No. 15

- 20724

2 judgment actually reflects the appropriate conviction under § 1326(b) (1). Accordingly, the government’s unopposed motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. T he government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is
DENIED as moot. Case: 15-20724 Document: 00513798330 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/15/2016
# C_2022023EN.01000201.xml

| 17.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 23/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 23/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10396 – GIP / MERIDIAM / NEW SUEZ)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 23/02)

On 3 January 2022, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in French and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10396. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10396. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
*OPINION ISSUED MAY 14, 2009*

#### WALLACE DAVIS VS. REGIONAL JAIL AND CORRECTIONAL FACILITY AUTHORITY

(CC-08-0406)

Claimant appeared *pro se.*

Ronald R. Brown, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

This claim was submitted for decision based upon the allegations in the Notice of Claim and respondent's Answer.

Claimant, a former inmate at the Eastern Regional Jail, seeks to recover $62.00 for an identification wallet that he alleges was misplaced by respondent. Claimant had the wallet when he was booked at the Eastern Regional Jail on March 26, 2008, but he did not have the wallet when he was released on July 8,2008.

In its Answer, respondent admits the validity of the claim and that the amount is fair and reasonable. The Court is aware that respondent does not have a fiscal method for paying claims of this nature; therefore, the claim has been submitted to this Court for determination.

This Court has taken the position in prior claims that if a bailment situation has been created, respondent is responsible for property of an inmate which is taken from that inmate, remains in its custody, and is not produced for return to the inmate.

Accordingly, the Court makes an award to the claimant herein in the amount of $62.00.

Award of $62.00.
#### MEADOWS v. HAYS.

No. 2299.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Waco.

Feb. 29, 1940.

Bennett & Bennett, of Normangee, for appellant.

Geppert, Geppert & Victery, of Teague, for appellee.

ALEXANDER, Justice.

 This case is before the court on motion of appellee to affirm on certificate because of the failure of appellant to file the transcript within the time provided by law. The record discloses that the trial court rendered final judgment and overruled defendant’s motion for new trial on September 22, 1939. On October 10, 1939, the appellant perfected his appeal by filing the statutory bond. The time within which the transcript should have been filed in the Court of Civil Appeals expired on November 21, 1939. ' Revised Statutes, Art. 1839, as amended in 1931, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St. art. 1839. The transcript has not yet been filed in this court. Appellee filed his motion to affirm on certificate February 13, 1940, during the term to which appellant’s appeal was returnable.

Under the provisions of Revised Statutes, Article 1841, the appellee is entitled to have the judgment of the trial court affirmed. Beaver v. Beaver, Tex.Civ.App., 57 S.W. 2d 279, and authorities there cited.

The motion to affirm on certificate is granted, and the judgment of the trial court affirmed.
October 2, 2015

Mr. Daniel T. Smith

Advanced Video and Digital Services

1409 East Boulevard, Suite 103

- B

Charlotte, NC 28203

Dear Mr . Smith :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can n o t Process Your Request

We received your exemption request posted to the docket on July 16, 2015

, on behalf of

Advanced Video and Digital Services filed in D ocket No

. FAA− 20 15

− 2948 , but we are

unable to process your request any further. Your petition does no t comply with the

requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must

send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html . This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal

Aviation A dministration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requ ested information

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267

- 2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure s34
# ~BEING

JUN 2 5 

### Z015

RA-15-02567

U.S. Department ofTransportation Docket Operations, M-30 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE John A. Hamilton Lead Administrator Regulatory Admn'IIStrat•..;n Commercial Alrplanll5

Room W12-140, West Building Ground Floor Washington DC 20590-0001 The Boeing Company P.O

. Box 3707 MC03·56 Seattle, WA98124·2207



### Subject: Petition for Exemption from Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Section 25.841 (a)(2) and (a)(3), at Amendment 25-87, Pressurized CabinsUncontained Engine Failure



### Model:

This letter isto submit: (X) Petition for Exemption 787-10

The Boeing Company respectfully submits this petition for exemption from the requirements ofTitle 14Code of Federal Regulations section 25.841 (a)(2) and (a)(3), at amendment 25-87 with respect to uncontained engine failure, forthe Boeing model 787- 10. The enclosure to this letter provides the details of the petition in accordance with the Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations Section 11.81, and does not include proprietary information. Boeing has submitted supplemental, proprietary information in support ofthis petition for exemption directly to the Transport Aircraft Directorate.



### Please contactthis office orthe following individuals 

### if you havefurther questions:
Project Administrator (PA): Certification Specialist:

Sincerely, 

# 4**/~ a~**  Douglas M. Lane ODA Deputy Lead Administrator (425) 237-1383, MC 03-52 FAX: (425) 294-9340 Gary E. Nagai MarkW. Cauble 425-266-2189 425-717-5153Page 2 U.S. Department ofTransportation RA-15-02567

Enclosure: Petition for Exemption from 14 CFR 25.841(a)(2) and 25.841(a)(3) Amendment25-87 for Uncontained Engine Failure.

cc Name Jeffrey E. Duven Jim Voytilla Angelos Xidias Shannon Lennon Jeff Palmer Meghan Gordon Letter SP 

## SP SP SP SP SP Enclosures SP 

## SP SP SP SP SP Comments ANM-100 ANM-1008 ANM-1008 ANM-1008 ANM-1068 ANM-113
Exhibit 32.2

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 SHANDONG RUITAI CHEMICAL CO., LTD.. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended October 31, 2006 (the "Report"), I, Anna Herbst, 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 requirement 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 Company's
> financial position and results of operations.

/s/Anna Herbst



Anna Herbst, Chief Financial Officer

February 13, 2007
##### 



OTTER TAIL CORPORATION
1999 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN
2005 NONQUALIFIED STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT
     Grant of Option
 Exercise Price
 Duration and Exercisability




---



##### 



Change of Control
      Transferability
 2




---



##### 



Effect of Termination of Employment
      3




---



##### 



Anti-dilution Adjustments provided however
 Manner of Exercise
 Taxes
 4




---



##### 



Miscellaneous
         5




---



##### 



OTTER TAIL CORPORATION
1999 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN
STOCK OPTION AWARD CERTIFICATE
    Grant Type:
    
    Nonqualified Stock OptionGrant Date:
    
    April 11, 2005Stock Option Plan:
    
    1999 Stock Incentive PlanOption Price Per Share:
    
    $Total Number of Shares Granted:Expiration Date:
    
    April 11, 2015
   OTTER TAIL CORPORATIONBy:John EricksonIts: President & Chief Executive Officer[Name of Optionee]
 6
#### MUELLER v. HEWGLEY.

No. 8725.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Jan. 27, 1932.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 24,1932.

Douglas & Black, of San Antonio, for appellant. ■

Forrest Campbell and John Pfeiffer, both of San Antonio, for appellee.

FLY, C. J.

This cause was instituted by Hewgley against Mueller on a promissory note for $332.05, and the latter filed a cross-action against F. A. Haecker. The court rendered a judgment against Mueller for the amount evidenced by the note and against him in his counterclaim against Haecker. The appeal bond was not executed to Haecker, and he is therefore not before this court. The judgment on the cross-action had become final.

The court found as follows:

> .“Plaintiff, M. M. Hewgley, purchased the original note sued upon, in good faith, for a valuable consideration, before maturity, without knowledge or notice of any defense claimed by the defendant, Mueller. At maturity of said original note the defendant, Mueller, with full knowledge of the defects claimed, renewed and extended said note.

> . “The note sued upon was given in payment of certain fruit trees and said trees at the time of sale and delivery were not infected with incipient or active crown gall.”

 Appellant sought a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence as to the trees, for which the note was given, being diseased. Appellant, however, testified as to the diseased condition of the trees on the trial, and the effect of the evidence was to corroborate that testimony. It was merely cumulative and could not form the basis of a new trial. Again, it is not denied that Hew-gley was a purchaser in good faith, for value, of the note without notice, and the so-called newly discovered evidence could not have affected any one but Haecker, who is not before this court.

The motion for new trial was properly overruled. The evidence sustained the findings of fact. The propositions are overruled.

The judgment is affirmed.