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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                       1,534,709
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  733,749
<ALLOWANCES>                                    40,179
<INVENTORY>                                    731,988
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,075,761
<PP&E>                                       2,086,882
<DEPRECIATION>                                 937,486
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,340,049
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          486,655
<BONDS>                                        407,539
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,449
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,338,406
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,340,049
<SALES>                                      2,263,565
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,263,565
<CGS>                                          719,560
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  719,560
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,114,775
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              22,133
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                486,160
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            486,160
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   486,160
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.38


</TABLE>
# CE2004078EN.01082101.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/821 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/821

---

(2004/C 78 E/0874)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3513/03

by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) and Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(25 November 2003)

Subject:   Water

Subject:

Could the Commission say whether any (and, if so, how many) of the Member Sates have so far complied with Article 24 of Directive 2000/60/EC (1)? Will the Commission be able to report to Parliament by January 2004? In 2002, did the Commission submit to the Regulatory Committee the plan referred to in Article 19 of the Directive, and what effect has that plan had as regards a possible resolution — or, indeed, action — in respect of the rules relating to water?

1

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(19 January 2004)

(19 January 2004)

Article 24 of the Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, requires the transposition of the Directive into national legislation by 22 December 2003. The 10 Acceding Countries will have to complete transposition of the Directive by the date of accession.

The Commission will report on the state of transposition and notification shortly after the deadlines have passed. The Commission will initiate legal proceedings on ‘non-communication’ for those countries which do not give notification in time.

Article 19 paragraph 1 of the Water Framework Directive requires the Commission to inform the Committee established under Article 21 of an ‘indicative plan of measures having an impact on water legislation which intends to propose in the near future, including any emerging from the proposals, control measures and strategies developed under Article 16’. On 6 May 2003, the Commission reported to the first meeting of the Committee on the state of development of the Daughter Directives on priority substances (Article 16) and groundwater (Article 17). The documents for the Committee meeting were sent to Parliament through the regular transmission routes.

In addition to the formal reports to the Committee, the Commission is working closely with the Member States, the Candidate and European Economic Area (EEA) Countries, stakeholders, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and other organisations, including the European Environment Agency, in the development of new water policies through the Expert Advisory Fora which were established in 2001. In this respect, the Expert Advisory Forum on Groundwater successfully finalised its work in June 2003 and enabled the Commission to present its proposal on 19 September 2003 (2).

2

Six meetings of the Expert Advisory Forum on Priority Substances have already taken place from March 2001 to November 2003. The preparatory work is still ongoing and the next meeting is scheduled for 8 March 2004.

---

(1)  OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1.

1

(2)  COM(2003) 550 final.

2

---
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

I, Alan C. Bashforth, the Chief Executive Officer of Science Dynamics
Corporation (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my
knowledge:

(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the fiscal
    quarter ended September 30, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the
    requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange
    Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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: November 13, 2002



                                    /s/ Alan C. Bashforth
                                    ---------------------
                                    Name: Alan C. Bashforth
                                    Title: Chief Executive Officer
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Cornell Companies, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2008,as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I John R. Nieser, Chief Financial Officer, Senior Vice President and Treasurer,certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.               The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 
|   |   | /s/  John R. Nieser                       |
|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------|
|   |   | John  R. Nieser, Chief Financial Officer, |
|   |   | Senior  Vice President and Treasurer      |
|   |   | August  14, 2009                          |

 

Note:      The certification theregistrant furnishes in this exhibit is not deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to theliabilities of that Section. Registration Statements or other documents filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission shall not incorporate this exhibitby reference, except as otherwise expressly stated in such filing.

 

----
* 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. 97-50620

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ARTURO YANEZ-PENALOZA,

a/k/a Arturo Yanez-Penazola,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. SA-97-CR-37-1

- - - - - - - - - -

February 12, 1998

Before SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Arturo Yanez-Penaloza appeals from his sentence for illegal

reentry after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He

contends that his sentence under § 1326(b)(2) constitutes a

violation of due process because the indictment did not allege

that he had a prior aggravated-felony conviction. His contention

is foreclosed by this court’s opinion in United States v.

Vasquez-Olvera, 999 F.2d 943, 946-47 (5th Cir. 1993).
No. 97-50620

-2-

Yanez-Penaloza’s motion for a stay of his appeal pending the

Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Almendarez-Torres,

113 F.3d 515 (5th Cir. 1996), cert. granted, 117 S. Ct. 1333

(1997), is DENIED. See Wicker v. McCotter, 798 F.2d 155, 157-58

(5th Cir. 1986). 

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6930

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

JOHN DAVID ANDERSON, JR., 

Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, District Judge. 

(1:00-cr-00033-BEL-1; 1:07-cv-00234-BEL) 

Submitted: November 8, 2011 Decided: December 8, 2011

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

John David Anderson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Martin Joseph 

Clarke, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, 

for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

John David Anderson, Jr., seeks to appeal the district 

court’s orders denying his motion for reconsideration and his

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3), (6) motion for relief from the 

district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 

(West Supp. 2011) motion. The orders are not appealable unless 

a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate 

of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of 

the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 

When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner 

satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists 

would find that the district court’s assessment of the 

constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 

529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on 

procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the 

dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion 

states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional 

right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently 

reviewed the record and conclude that Anderson has not made the 

requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of 

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1997
<CASH>                                             639
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   63,031
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    357,008
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               678,019
<PP&E>                                         173,304
<DEPRECIATION>                                  65,859
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,949,578
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,190,047
<BONDS>                                         76,268
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,279
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,847,967
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,949,578
<SALES>                                         24,118
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                50,967
<CGS>                                           75,325
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   75,325
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               921,510
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 9,283
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              79,463
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,398,425)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,398,425)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,398,425)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.29)
        

</TABLE>
Si:CiW:r Y.S. E?.lBS ONLY TENTATIVE 

SUBJECT NUMBER 

USCIB: 13.5/45 Item 1 Considered at the Twelfth Meeting of USCIBEC, 

held on 4 March 1954 (Item 3 of Agenda for Eleventh 

Meeting). 

Subject: Security of COMINT Transmitted by Electrical Means. 

(USCIB 13.5/36, /40) 

THE CHAIRMAN introduced this item by stating that agreement had 

been reached upon a directive which provides that the Director, NSA, 

will prescribe minimum security standards. He suggested. that the 

members consider USCIB 13.5/36 in light of the comments contained in 

USCIB 13.5/40, noting that State, Defense, and FBI have agreed to abide 

by the majority view. ' 

CAPTAIN AGNEW pointed out that Board approval is required before 

action can be taken in this matter, expressing his opinion that some 

members have overlooked the point that the Director, NSA 1 s paper was 

submitted merely as an initial step. 

The specific recommendations contained in USCIB 13.5/40 were considered one by one, resulting in agreement upon the original paper 

(USCIB 13.5/36) with the following amendments: 

a. Par. 2, 3rd Sentence - Change initial phrase to read: 

''Departments and agencies are therefore urged to submit 

••• etc. 11 

b. Par. 3, 1st Sentence - Change final phrase to read: 

"so identified is indicative of the effort expended or 

the success achieved by COMINT producers." 

c. Par. 4, Last Sentence - Change final phrase to read: 

"by the Director, NSA, or by appeal to USCIB if necessary." 

d. Par. 7, 2nd Sentence - Change final phrase to read: 

"for non-COMINT information except in unusual conditions." 

e. Par. 7, Last Sentence - Change final phrase to read: 

11COMINT activity may be considered COMINT information." 

DECISION: (4 March 1954) USCIBEC agreed to recommend USCIB approval of 

the proposal contained in the enclosure with USCIB 13.5/36, subject to 

the amendments indicated above. 

USCIB: 13.5/45 - 3 -

SECRET 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 02-18-2014 pursuant to E.O. 1352e
• "' •. : • .,t 

~-------------------­ REF ID:A61076 

Telephone 

Executive 194<> 

MP~ 

ll/593 

:BRlTISH JOINT SD.VICES MISSION 

Main Navy Building 

Washington 25, D.C. 

MDDtAimUM Ff.B; Director, National. security Agency 

38ol Bebraaka Avenue, B .w. 

Washington, D. C. 

J'R(Jb 

Subjects 

British C~tographic Liaiaon Officer 

ROOlll 49()41 Main He.vy Building 

Relea.ae ot .AJ'SAM 7 

i. It ia probably known to you that the U.K. Chiefs of Staf't have 

a.ppl"OVed the report ot the l.953 Communications Security Cont'erence 

end that the U .8. Joint Chieta or Statt have been ao inf'ormed. I am 

instructed by the Secretary, c.P.B. to inf'orm you that, in the couree 

ot consideration at this Report by the cogniaant U.K. authorities,, 

L.S.I.B. approved the release ot AlSAM 7 tor international lfA.1'0 

communications. 

2. In addition, separate]¥ trODl the Report, consideration was given 

to the rel.ease or AFSAM 7 tar the JJ&tional communications ot 'NATO 

nations, a1nce it was thought that aooner or later such use wouJ.d 

prove neceSISary. This turther rel.eue has been approved b:y the C .P .B. 

and has alao been approved by L.S.I.B. 11Wben the need uiees, on the 

understanding that C.P.B. cont1l"JllB with u.s. OO!olJEC authorities that 

u.s.c.I.B. baa no objection." ~is is approval in principle and is 

riot concerned With the timi?JS ot the release. The Secretary, C.P.B. 

therefore requests that he nay be inf'orlllBd u- and when u.s.c.I.B. 

epproves 1JJ. principle the release ot AJ'SAM 7 to HM.10 nations tor 

na.t:tons.l communications and a1so if' e.nd when a decision is taken to 

release any ot the nachines. 

PL 86-36/50 USC 3605 

. Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 04-18-2014 pursuant to E. 0. 1352B 

. • "!"' .. - - - ~'\i., ' ' .. 

• ' .ol r .,..,., •' ' 1/11 ·~ ·-
Exhibit 32.2
 Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  By:
    
    /s/ Michael J. McCannMichael J. McCannChief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 36 (Tuesday, February 24, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 9846]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03757]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 9044]


Waiver of Chemical and Biological Weapons (CBW) Proliferation 
Sanctions Against Certain Chinese Entities

AGENCY: Department of State.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY:  A determination has been made, pursuant to Section 81(e) of 
the Arms Export Control Act and Section 11C(e) of the Export 
Administration Act of 1979, as amended, to waive nonproliferation 
sanctions imposed under these Acts on certain Chinese entities.

DATES:  Effective Date: Upon publication in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pamela K. Durham, Office of Missile, 
Biological, and Chemical Nonproliferation, Bureau of International 
Security and Nonproliferation, Department of State, Telephone (202) 
647-4930.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Section 81(e) of the Arms Export 
Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2798(e)) and Section 11C(e) of the Export 
Administration Act of 1979, as amended (50 U.S.C. app. 2410c(e)), the 
Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security 
determined and certified to Congress that waiving sanctions originally 
imposed on May 21, 1997 (see Volume 62 FR Public Notice 28304) on the 
following Chinese entities and successors is important to the national 
security interests of the United States:
    1. Nanjing Chemical Industries Group (NCI)
    2. Jiangsu Yongli Chemical Engineering and Technology Import/Export 
Company

    Dates: February 18, 2015.
Thomas M. Countryman,
Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and 
Nonproliferation.
[FR Doc. 2015-03757 Filed 2-23-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-27-P
USCIB; 4.2/46 

9 May 1955 

M».IORANDUM FOR THE MEMBERS OF USCIB: 

Subject: Exception to the Provisions of USCIB Directive #15. 

Reference: USCIB 4.2/44, 21 April 1955. 

1. Vote sheet replies to the reference indicate approval by all 

members, with the exception of the Director, NSA, who desires that the 

matter be considered further. Informal discussion indicates that the 

Director, NSA, is interested in obtaining a more precise idea of the 

functions and responsibilities of the Division Commanders, CADC, as 

compared with those of Army, Fleet, and Numbered Air Force Commanders. 

2. Accordingly, discussion of this matter is being scheduled for 

consideration at the next regular meeting of USCIBEC . 

. USCIB: 4.2/46 IIMH:Jr:.JS 1

lIA 00Milft' 0IIAffNffi.s ONLY 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on o:-10-2014 pursuant to E. 0. 1352B 

COl'fFIDE!l1TIAL 

24
# **EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OFINDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

 

Wehereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statementson Form S-8 (333-19127, 333-19145, 333-80187, 333-42444, 333-52236 and333-77006) and on Form S-3 (333-91211) for Cornell Companies, Inc. of ourreport dated March 16, 2005 relating to the consolidated financial statements,management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting,which appears on this Form 10-K.

 

 

 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Houston, Texas

March16, 2005

 

----
**EXHIBIT(10)(a)**

 

**FIRST AMENDMENT TO AMENDED ANDRESTATED**

**CHANGE OF CONTROL AGREEMENT**

 

****THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED CHANGE OF CONTROL AGREEMENT, made this 13th day ofNovember, 2002, by and between **C-COR.net CORP.**, a Pennsylvania corporation (the “Company”), and **WILLIAM T. HANELLY** (“Employee”). 

 

**BACKGROUND**

 

****A. Employee and the Company entered into an Amended and Restated Change of Control Agreement onJanuary 18, 2000 (the “Agreement”). 

 

B.The Agreement provides certain measures and protections for Employee in the event of a change of control of the Company. 

 

C. The Company and Employee mutually desire to amend the Agreement to extend the measures and protections for Employee under Section 3 ofthe Agreement. 

 

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties tothis First Amendment to Amended and Restated Change of Control Agreement, intending to be legally bound, agree as follows: 

 

1. Sections 3 (a) (i) and (ii) of the Agreement shall be amended to delete the language “two (2) times” and “twotimes” where either phrase is used and replace such language with “three (3) times.” 

 

2. Section 3(b) of the Agreement shall be amended to read as follows: 

 

“(b) Employee shall be entitled to receive an amount of cash equal to three (3) timesthe average of the Profit Incentive Plan or the successor to such plan (“PIP”) payments of the last three (3) years awarded to him/her under the PIP of the Company, pursuant to the terms of such PIP as in effect immediately prior to suchchange in control. Such amount will be paid to the Employee within ten 

 

(10) daysafter termination of employment. If the Employee has not received PIP payments for twelve (12) full quarters at the officer level, the average annual PIP will be calculated by averaging the number of full quarters for which Employee’s officerlevel PIP has been accrued (whether already paid or not paid) and annualizing that amount.” 

 

3. Section 3(c) of the Agreement shall be amended to delete the language “24 months” and replace such language with “three (3) years.” 

 

4. In all other respects, the Agreement is ratified andaffirmed and shall continue in accordance with its terms. 

 

5. This First Amendment to Amended and Restated Change of Control Agreement shall be binding upon the successors, heirs, personal representatives and assigns of each party. 

 

COMPANY:

 

**C-COR.net CORP.**

By: /s/  Donald M. Cook

Title: Chairman, Compensation Committee

 

 

EMPLOYEE:

 

/s/  William T. Hanelly

WILLIAM T. HANELLY