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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           2,105
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,870
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                40,011
<PP&E>                                       1,079,336
<DEPRECIATION>                               (619,446)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 510,973
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           48,400
<BONDS>                                        306,744
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         40
<COMMON>                                           318
<OTHER-SE>                                     113,614
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   510,973
<SALES>                                        139,242
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               106,530
<CGS>                                           93,350
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   93,350
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,390
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              21,021
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (13,231)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (4,631)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,600)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,600)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.49)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.49)


</TABLE>
### Attachment A**- 6**  **. Educational Sciences Reform Act (ESRA)**

This evaluation is authorized through provisions in the Education Sciences Reform Act (ESRA) of 2002. Specifically, ESRA Part D, Section 174 (4) describes the role of regional education laboratories and its mission and function. One aspect of that role is (4) in the event such quality applied research does not exist as determined by the regional educational laboratory or the Department, carrying out applied research projects that are designed to serve the particular educational needs (in prekindergarten through grade 16) of the region in which the regional educational laboratory is located, that reflect findings from scientifically valid research, and that result in user - friendly, replicable school - bas ed classroom applications geared toward promoting increased student achievement, including using applied research to assist in solving site - specific problems and assisting in development activities (including high - quality and on - going professional developm ent and effective parental involvement strategies) (ESRA, Part D, Section 174, f.4).
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In
connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Summit Bancshares, Inc (the Company) for the period ended June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as of the date hereof (the Report), I, Shirley
W. Nelson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby 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 Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



(2) the information contained
in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/Shirley W. NelsonName: Shirley W. NelsonTitle:   Chairman and CEODate:   November 10, 2003




A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been
provided to summit Bancshares, Inc, and will be retained by Summit Bancshares, Inc, and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
; 

/. /~ •• REF ID:A7~~ ~ )

. 

Dr. A. S1111tov 

Chief, Security Div1siQn 

Captain Juea I. Toner ·, 

Custodian, Army Security Agency · 

. 

l4 Ju.l.y 1949 

Inunda~1on or Cryptographic Storage Rooa 

At 2230 hours I receiTed a call from ltt. O'lleal of tne Pentagon . Guard Officer Telliag me they bad to gain admittance to Room 1Dl032 

becaue n ter was tl.owiqg tram UDder the door. I told him not to 

toree an entrance aa I 1d be over in about 15 llliautea. 

I arriTed at 2250 hours aecompa.Died by Captain Williams. Upon 

arr1'981 Ins conf'ronted wit.a the back double door 'broken off it•s 

bi.Dgea, ud about a.ix inches or water in the corridor and our back 

roam. 

Approximately twenty mea, with four •chiD.es were pumping water 

troa the corridors. Lt. 0'1eal entered to.e baok room to try and locate 

the leak in the darK, as DO lights had been 'turned on £9.r fear of short 

c1rcu1 ts. later was nosing tbrouth the cieling from every hole and 

fixture ouUet.. I gained admitta.nce thru our front cioor which bas the 

tbree coabinat1011 loc&. I ee-uld reach as t'ar as the first bay when 

about three inches of water stopped me. I threw the switch centrolliag 

the lights in the bays a.lid water was everywhere aud still coming down 

f'roo. the cieling in the rear. The two terminals were sa.fe from overhead water and from my i:is.pection no damage resulted unless the conduits 

in the base ot tne terminals got wet. 

Tbe def'ea.tive -1,ye tut cont.rolled tbe water nowing through the 

three in.ch pipe ne f'>nally l.ocated aromui :midnight. By 02.30 hours tb.e 

room •• ti.Dally pumped dry ot water. 

!he door that •• forced. open was replaced tempor&ril.7. Tb.e temporary door wa& barricad~ froa the 1ae1de and a guard was po15ted outside, with 

written instructions £uraisaed to the Sergeant of the Guard. (aee incl. 1) 

After checking the remaining rooms I pulled the aster sw1 tela .and left 

at 0300 houra. As no carpenters are available atter working hours the 

Supt ot tbe PelltagOD arranged.to have a earpmter tor ae at 0800 hours 

15 July l949 to replace the door. 

J'rom a casual inspection it is my opinion that the test equipment, 

l •pare racks, panels and terminal records all bee.emiDg saturated will take 

a week or longer saff1cientl1 for tl:le electric~a to go to work on tbe , -oiel.ing fixture•. It is also expected th& t sections or the ciellng will 

' \ crumble. • · , 

1" 

'

1 

)-

i1tJ~ , r v~ ~ A more th<>rG\'lgh 111.epection will be made at a later date 

p ?) '- ~J!! '.J$ _ @'pp roved for Release by NSA on 06-02-2014 pursuantto E .0. 1352a 

~ - '51 Incl JAUS I. TOBER ~J~ .. _y Copy of Inst.. gi'Yea to Sgt. of the Guard C&pt&in, Signal Corps ;'"I. ,, fJ & 

\~~ Jil ,.,4~ l
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 9, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 05-20267 

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE PINEDA-GARDUNO, also known as Jose Garduno Pineda, 

also known as Jose G. Pineda, 

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:04-CR-369-ALL

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

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Pineda-Garduno (“Pineda”) appeals the sentence imposed

following entry of his guilty plea to a charge of being found

illegally in the United States after he had been removed

subsequent to his conviction for an aggravated felony. The

district court sentenced Pineda to 57 months of imprisonment and

three years of supervised release.

Pineda’s sole issue on appeal is a challenge to the validity

of Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), and
No. 05-20267

-2-

the use of his prior conviction to increase his sentence. Pineda

asserts that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional because they are treated

as sentencing factors rather than as elements of the offense. 

Pineda concedes that his argument is foreclosed by circuit

precedent and admits that he raises the argument merely to

preserve it for Supreme Court review. 

As Pineda concedes, his arguments are foreclosed. See

United States v. Izaguirre-Flores, 405 F.3d 270, 277-78 (5th

Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 253 (2005); United States v.

Mancia-Perez, 331 F.3d 464, 470 (5th Cir. 2003). The Supreme

Court in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000), did

not overrule Almendarez-Torres, and we must follow AlmendarezTorres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to

overrule it.” Mancia-Perez, 331 F.3d at 470 (internal quotation

marks and citation omitted). 

AFFIRMED.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 0360

_____________________________
K ENNETH E. H AMMETT , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________ On appeal from the Circuit Court fo r Columbia County

. Wesley R. Douglas , Judge

. May 2 3 , 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. O STERHAUS , W INOKUR , and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________ Kenneth E. Hammett, pro se
, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Samuel B. Steinberg, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
REF ID: A363tlP 

'119' 

Paper xo. 1) 

~ D 1< .. 

DS.PARTWMf' OF COMllEROE ( SE? 2 2 \<jl\S 

Ua1~•d S'8.tea Paten• Otf1oe 

Walhlftl'On, 1>.C. 

Ja ,.. appl1oa.t1on ot 1 

t 

WILLIAM F. J'FIEttfAff f 

serial lfo.. 551172 i 

~;i:4Jruc::1a,+1i~-:EV1os ; 

the abo•• noted applloat1on became abandoned 

on h'bruar7 JJ.. 19lf.S beoauae ot appl1oan~•• ta11ure to 

respond to the Ott1oe aotton uied 1'ebl'uar7 3. 19it.5. ~ 

pei1,1on 1• accompanied b7 an amendment 1rh1oh la reai>on•1ve 

'but; do•• no~ plaoe the ea.a tn cond1't1on ~or allowanoe. 

!he pet1~1on and st&temente o~ oouneel ar• vor1t1ed. 

Exaa1ner 

@'pproved for Release by NSA on 07-23-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a
----REF ID: A39955 

SECRET 

• 

TO 

CONFIDENAL 

DATE 22 Ma.r~S FROM TO 

RESTRICTED 

FROM 

~Chief, ASA (10)_ = Executive 0 (11)_ 

Co'r Joint Oper (12)_ 

_ Deputy Chief, ASA (20) 

_ Ch, Comm Res Sec (14) -XCh, Hist Umt (13) __ 

Ch, Pers Sec (21)_ 

Ch, Org & Tng Sec (22)_ 

Ch, Plans & Oper (23)_ 

Ch, Materiel Sec (24)_ 

Ch, Fiscal See (25)_ 

Ad3utant, ASA (26)_ 

Ch, Sec Cont Sec (27)_ 

_ Ch, Operations Div (90)_ 

Ch, Lab Br (91)_ 

Ch, Machme Br (92)_ 

Ch, Crypt Br {93)_ 

Ch, Int Cont Br (94)_ 

Ch, I & D Br (95)_ 

( ) Approval & Return 

( ) As Requested 

( ) Concurrence or Comments 

( ) Information & Forwarding 

( ) Information & Return 

1. Almost a year ago, 

Tech Staff (96)_ 

_ Ch, Security Div (80)_ 

Tech Staff (81)_ 

Ch, Materiel Br (82) _ 

_ Ch, Methods Br (83)_ 

_ Ch, Prot.ect1ve Br (84)_ 

_ Ch, Mamt Br (85)_ 

_ Ch, Res Lab Div (70)_ 

Tech Staff (71)_ 

Ch,Ch C1ph&C1fBr(72)_ 

Ch, Int Equip Br (73)_ 

Ch, Elec & Elec Br (74)_ 

Ch, Lab Serv Br (75) _ 

Ch, C'logic Br (76) _ 

_ Ch, Pers & Tng Br {61)_ 

_Ch, Supply Br (62)_ 

_Co, Arlington Hall (40)_ 

( ) Information & File 

( ) Recommendation 

( ) Signature if approved 

( ) Your action by 

( ) Info upon which to base reply 

when this question 

was reopened, I prepared a memo to AS-23, 

proposing a very generally, rather than a 

specifically, worded Act. I & S Subcommittee 

considered and rejected my idea and decided to 

go ahead with s. 1019, modifying it. The 

version we now propose to try is the lattst 

CSGAS 96 (Rev 12) 16 Apr 47 47938 

@'pproved for Release by NSA on 09-02-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a 
REF ID:A39955 

attempt. 

2. I have studied Capt. Finnegan's memo to 

USCICC and more th.an ever am convinced we 

are gplng at this the wrong way--and one that 

can be very risky. On the other hand, a bill 

of a very general nature would especially ~ 

have a better chance of acceptance, with no 

risk whatever to Sigint. 

3. I therefore send you herewith my original 

memo of 30 July 47 to AS-23, with the draft I 

elaborated upon the basis of a very general 

Act. I urge your serious consideration of my proposal. 

W.F.F.
REF 

THE WASHINGTON POST 

Tuesday, April 21, 1953 

'Hill' Prohers P 

Shake.up at r 

Merger of Three 

Collins Urges 

One Service 

-Intelligence 

Gen. J. Lawton Collins yes- · terday proposed merging the , Army, Navy and Air Force in·: 

telligence forces and expanding I 

the role of the chairman of the : 

Joint Chiefs of Staff. I 

The Army chief of staff was ' 

asked for his views on possible , changes in the setup of the i 

armed forces at a hearing of a ' 

Senate subcommittee investigat-: 

ing ammunition shortages. He· 

disclosed he had submitted ! 

these three recommendations to ! 

the Rockfeller c o m m i s s i o n i 

studying the Pentagon com·' 

mand structure: I 

1. Creation of one military in· 

telligence organization, under, 

the Joint Chiefs of Staff, cover· j 

ing broad matters in that field, i 

to eliminate duplication among! 

the three services. ·Each, how· ! 

ever, should retain an intelli· : 

gence force for field and "close·· i 

intelligence. 1 

2. Give the Secretary of De·j fense a "military executive for 

administrative matters" of gen·1' eral officer rank, who should 

have a small staff. Such an offi· ! 

cer could greatly reduce the I 

workload of the Joint Chiefs i 

of Staff by assigning problems; that do not involve strategic or· 

controversial matters to one of· 

the three departments. The Sec· · retary now must send many mat-! 

ters to the JCS because there : 

is no other competent staff to ' 

handle them. i 

3. Make it 'the duty of the 

JCS chairman to bring matters 

in dispute among the Joint 

Chiefs to the Defense Secretary , and President, stating the con· 1 

fticting views in detail, and 

give his own recommendations 

as to which answer is best. Col-! 

lins addea he would have the 1 

JCS chairman also give his own 

recommendations where he disagreed with a unanimous recommendation of the Chiefs of Staff 

of the Army, Navy and Air 

Force. 

At present, the JCS chairman can give his own views of 

disputes to higher authority, but rarely does. What happens is that the chiefs usually workj 

out a compromise, .which often· 

Is neither satisfactory to the 

11111111111111111111111111111111111 ................................ _:s:ervi~·c~e:s~n:o:r~t:o~t~h:e~t~a~x:p~ay~e~r~.
<PAGE>   1
                                  [EXHIBIT 11]

                         NORTH FORK BANCORPORATION, INC.

              COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARE
                                  JUNE 30, 2000
                                   (UNAUDITED)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                              Three Months Ended               Six Months Ended
                                                        ------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           June 30,        June 30,        June 30,        June 30,
                                                             2000            1999            2000            1999
                                                        ------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                     <C>             <C>             <C>             <C>
Net Income..............................................$ 86,019,038    $ 65,252,545    $ 87,930,724    $126,299,517

Common Equivalent Shares:
Weighted Average Common Shares Outstanding...............171,671,916     166,169,213     166,994,366     166,803,901
Weighted Average Common Equivalent Shares................  1,174,971       1,425,238       1,149,566       1,506,914
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------
Weighted Average Common And Common Equivalent Shares.....172,846,887     167,594,451     168,143,932     168,310,815
                                                         ===========================================================

Net Income Per Common Equivalent Share - Basic..........$       0.50    $       0.39    $       0.53    $       0.76
Net Income Per Common Equivalent Share - Diluted .......$       0.50    $       0.39    $       0.52    $       0.75
</TABLE>




                                       25
November 17, 2016

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

HARRIS COUNTY, TX, Appellant

NO. 14-16-00905-CV V.

GASPAR ORLANDO GARCIA, Appellee

________________________________

Today the Court heard appellant's motion to dismiss the appeal from the 

order signed by the court below on November 1, 2016. Having considered the 

motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by 

appellant, Harris County, TX.

We further order that mandate be issued immediately.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
EXHIBIT 31.2
CERTIFICATION
          I, John E. Porter, certify that:
          1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Glen Burnie Bancorp;
          2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
          3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
          4. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures,or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the Registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared; (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and (c) Disclosed in this report any change in theRegistrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the Registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the Registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the Registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and
          5. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, tothe Registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of Registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
(a) All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the Registrant’s ability to record, process, summarizeand report financial information; and (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role inthe Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.   Date: March 26, 2004 /s/ John E. Porter   John E. Porter Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>


                         Consent of Independent Auditors


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No.  33-69812)  pertaining  to the 1992  Incentive and  Non-Qualified  Stock
Option Plan of Just Toys,  Inc. of our report  dated  February  28,  1997,  with
respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Just Toys, Inc.
included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1996.

                                                           /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

New York, New York
March 27, 1997
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7725

CLAUDE CARPENTER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

C.T. WOODY, Sheriff; BURNETT, Lt. Col.; ROBINSON, Capt., Medical Dept.; DR. FURMAN; RICHMOND SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (3:08-cv-00143-RLW)

Submitted: March 31, 2009 Decided: April 14, 2009

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Claude Carpenter, Appellant Pro Se. Robert A. Dybing, Thomas Douglas Lane, THOMPSON MCMULLAN, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Claude Carpenter appeals the district court’s order

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated

by the district court. Carpenter v. Woody , No. 3:08-cv-00143-

RLW (E.D. Va. Aug. 14, 2008). 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
EXHIBIT 32.1

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


In connection with the Annual Report of MemberWorks Incorporated (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gary A. Johnson,
President, Chief Executive Officer and Director of the Company, certify, to my
knowledge, 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



/s/ Gary A. Johnson
-------------------
Gary A. Johnson
President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
MemberWorks Incorporated
September 15, 2003

























A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.