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

<ARTICLE> 9
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         177,169
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         161,656
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                71,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  3,688,203
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       1,473,518
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         1,438,112
<LOANS>                                      7,634,700
<ALLOWANCE>                                     74,887
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,510,617
<DEPOSITS>                                   7,701,574
<SHORT-TERM>                                 2,076,500
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            496,819
<LONG-TERM>                                  2,143,916
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,931
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,089,877
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              13,510,617
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                150,673
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               82,853
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 2,897
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               236,423
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              48,555
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             104,097
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          132,326
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    1,251
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 180
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 51,217
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 95,906
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      95,906
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    61,332
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.38
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.19
<LOANS-NON>                                     10,684
<LOANS-PAST>                                     4,941
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   553
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                77,683
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    9,987
<RECOVERIES>                                     3,428
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               74,887
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            74,887
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</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 Quarterly Report of North Fork Bancorporation, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John
Adam Kanas, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company. /s/ John Adam Kanas  
 May 10, 2004 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 North Fork
Bancorporation, Inc. and will be retained by North Fork Bancorporation, Inc.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
REF ID:A38353 

!6 



REF ID:A38353 


REF ID:A38353_ 



REF ID:A38353 
REF ID:A38353 


REF ID:A38353 







REF ID:A38353 ------------




REF ID:A38353 

~~,6.....k_ 1z. f-"'l~·r··11.oU2. ~ •b ~ c\ 'f~ c..ltru
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 10960 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
JOSE RAMIREZ , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:17

- CR

- 53

- 1

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jose Ramirez pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute a
controlled substance and was sentenced within the Guidelines to 180 months of imprisonment, to be followed by 3 years of supervised release. On appeal, he contends that the district court violated his constitutional rights unde r the Confrontation Clause and Due Process Clause when , in imposing his sentence,

* 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 May 16, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Cl erk Case: 17-10960 Document: 00514475714 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/16/2018No. 17

- 10960

2 the court relied on information from the presentence report abou t his other criminal activity

. Even so, Ramirez moves for summary disposition of his appeal because
he conced es that th e issue is foreclosed by this court’s decisions in United States v. Beydoun, 469 F.3d 102, 108 (5th Cir. 2006), and United States v.
Navarro , 169 F.3d 228, 236 (5th Cir. 1999). He states that he seeks to preserve the issue for further review. As Ramirez observes, his rights under the Confrontation Clause do not extend to sentencing proceedings. See Beydoun, 469 F.3d at 108. Moreover, we have previou sly rejected that the denial of the right to confront witnesses at a sentencing hearing was a due process violation. See United States v. Salas, 182 F. App’x 282, 284 & n.7 (5th Cir. 2006). Because Ramirez’s arguments are indeed foreclosed, his motion for summary disposition is GRANTED . T he judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. Case: 17-10960 Document: 00514475714 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/16/2018
##### 



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 Quarterly Report of North Fork Bancorporation, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John
Adam Kanas, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                        
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | (2) |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

/s/ John Adam KanasJohn Adam Kanas
President and
Chief Executive Officer

August 14, 2003

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to §906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

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 North Fork
Bancorporation, Inc. and will be retained by North Fork Bancorporation, Inc.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.

33
.... :::::· .,~_;::;:-::::--:::-:. 

. . 

AEROGRAM 

>---. 

AVSANDARE -t) -.r· 

SENDER 

EXPEDITEUR 

ABS ENDER 

FLYGBEFORDRAS OVER HElA V}l;RLDEN UTAN 

TILL}l;GGSAVGIFT. BEFORDRAS ICKE SOM AEROGRAM, OM NAGOT LAGGES INUTI. 

. GODKANT AV KUNGL. GENERAL?OSTSTiRElSEN 

... f. E~ 

·r u. r ..... 

" . . • 

l[ungdoh!s, Nvb'O
Abatement Order filed April 9, 2014

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 14

- 00093

- CV

IN RE TRACEY BISHOP , Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 311th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2003

- 55818



### ABATEMENT ORDER

On February 5 , 2014, relator Tracey Bishop filed a n amended petition for
writ of mandamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this Court to compel the judge of 311th
District Court of Harr is County to vacate multiple orders in a suit affecting the parent

- child relationship

. Relator also filed a motion for temporary relief, asking this Court to stay all proceedings in the underlying litigation pending this Court’s disposition of her petition for writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.10. This2

Court denied relator’s motion for temporary relief on March 12, 2014 . Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus, however, remains pending with this Court, and this
Court requested a response to relator’s petition from the real party in interest and amicus attorney. At the time relator filed her amended petition for writ of mandamus, the Honorable Denise Pratt was serving in the capacity as presiding judge of the 311th District Court. Judge Pratt resigned her office effective March 28, 2014. By rule, we must abate this original proceeding to permit respondent’s successor to reconsider the orders challenged in relator’s petition. See Tex. R. App. P. 7.2(b); see also In re Baylor Med. Ctr. at Garland , 280 S. W.3d 227, 228 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding) (“Mandamus will not issue against a new judge for what a former one did.”). Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of relator’s petition, we abate this proceeding, treat it as a closed case, an d remove it from the Court’s active docket. This original proceeding will be reinstated on this Court’s active docket at such time when respondent’s successor advises this Court of the action taken upon reconsideration of the orders challenged by relator. This Court also will consider an appropriate motion filed by either party to reinstate or dismiss this original proceeding, as appropriate.

We further direct relator to advise this Court of the status of the underlying litigation every thirty (30) days fr om the date of this order until the trial court has
informed this Court of the action taken upon reconsideration of the orders challenged by relator

.3

It is so ORDERED

.

PER CURIAM

Panel c onsi sts of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Jamison and Wise.
REF ID:A40191 

A?I ACT TO PROVIDE POH THE CONTIRUING COMMON DEFEllSB OP 

·TUE lllfi TED STA TES 

l. Whoever sba11 obtain or shall have custod7 or. or 

access to, or knowledge ot, or shall. have obtained., or l".sa.d 

custody or, or accees to, or knowledge or, (1) any 1nrormat1on 

conceitri1ng the nature, preparation. or use of any cod&, cipher, 

or cryptographic or cryptanalyt1cal system ot the United btates 

or any foreign gove:i"nmcnt {2) any information concernin8 the 

construction, use, maintenance or repair or an? device~ apparatus. 

ot aptniance used or prepared or planned tor use by the United 

States or any tore1gn government for cttypto0 raph1e or cryptanalytic purposee, or (3) any matter which has been, or purports 

to have b~~n. prepared or transmitted in or by tne uee or any 

code, e1pher or cryptographic syatem of the United States or any 

tore1gn government, or (4) any intorrnat1on concerning the 

617Ptograph1c or cryptanal~t1c activities of the United btates or 

any tore1en goverill!lent, or (5) an7 1nforMation which has been or 

purports to have been11er1ved from cryptanal~sis or messages 

trane~itted by the United States or any roreign government, and 

Shall, without authorization by competent authority> communioa~e 

furnish or transmit to anothe~ or publish any such information, 

I o~ matter. shall upon conv1ct~on thereof be punished by a fln& 

or not l'lOre than tlo,,.ooo or bJ imprisonment for not more than 

r 

ten years. or by both such t1*e and imprisonment. 

2. the term "toreign~overnm.ent" as use4 herein shall b 

,1 

taken to incluae any person q~ pereone acting or purporting to 

ii 

SEQ

1

'

11

1

'.RE.,. ~~~~~~s~~~~~d ~pproved for 

09-27-2013 pursuant to E.O. 

f ...U-S..'JUSAJJCCQ'.'l8W'El;:&&&JSZ!itl&Jl.Mi:..4-~~ ........... ~~~~~~--~-L~-~~~-1!!!~~~~~~5ooi~....__=-==:~==-_J 
REF ID:A40191 

SECRET 

act tor or oh behalt' or any m111 tary or naval roroe, taction 01' 

pa:rity, or tor or on behalr or a.."ly govt;r:nm.ent or an7 pet-son or 

persona pu:tt"porting to aet a& a eoverrunent~ whether or not auoh 

gove!'nll16nt is recognized by the United States. 

~. (a) T.b.e term "cryptographic 11 as used herein ahllll 

be taken to include any code, cipher~ secret writins, deception~ 

mechanical device# or other method used to d1sguiso or conc~al 

the meaning o! any communication. (b) 'l'he term. "oryptanalytio'* 

ae uaee. herein shall be taken to include all n1ethods of 

intercepting and allmethods or obta1ntng in~ormat1on of tho 

contents or oryptograph1c commun1eations. 

SEGRE-r ams x 22 - : !SI!!! IYA&U s• :SWIW!7st<&wl •:::.•-:a iiMEt-
exhibit1057.htm






  





  











  













 


Exhibit 10.57


DEMAND PROMISSORY NOTE


 


 







 


 







 


 


$300,000                                                                                     Date:  April 7, 2011


 


 







 


 


FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned jointly and severally promise to pay to the order of Warren Breslow, the sum of Three Hundred Thousand Dollars and no/100 ($300,000.00), together with interest of 10% per annum on the unpaid balance.


 


 


The entire principal and any accrued interest shall be fully and immediately payable UPON DEMAND of any holder thereof.


 


 







 


 


 

 


 


 


”Borrower”


 


Aura Systems, Inc.

















____________________


Melvin Gagerman


Chief Executive Officer







 


Dated: April 7, 2011
##### 



Exhibit 11 North Fork Bancorporation, Inc. COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER COMMON AND COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARE
June 30, 2004
(unaudited) Three Months
    
    Six MonthsEnded June 30,
    
    Ended June 30,2004
    
    2003
    
    2004
    
    2003Net Income
    
    $
    108,999,359
    
    
    $
    96,112,378
    
    
    $
    211,517,959
    
    
    $
    199,651,559Common and Common Equivalent Shares:Weighted Average Common Shares Outstanding
    
    
    157,989,243
    
    
    
    152,911,128
    
    
    
    153,155,986
    
    
    
    153,417,362Weighted Average Common Equivalent Shares
    
    
    2,326,528
    
    
    
    1,540,138
    
    
    
    2,580,685
    
    
    
    1,543,390Weighted Average Common and Common Equivalent Shares
    
    
    160,315,771
    
    
    
    154,451,266
    
    
    
    155,736,671
    
    
    
    154,960,752Net Income per Common Share  Basic
    
    $
    0.69
    
    
    $
    0.63
    
    
    $
    1.38
    
    
    $
    1.30Net Income per Common and Common Equivalent Share  Diluted
    
    $
    0.68
    
    
    $
    0.62
    
    
    $
    1.36
    
    
    $
    1.29
 40
EXHIBIT  32.1


  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
     PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
                          Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

      In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A of Life
Medical  Sciences,  Inc.  for the  fiscal  year ended  December  31,  2004,  the
undersigned  hereby  certifies  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  to the best of my
knowledge and belief, that:

      (1)   such  Annual  Report on Form  10-KSB/A  for the  fiscal  year  ended
            December 31, 2004 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A for
            the fiscal year ended  December  31, 2004  fairly  presents,  in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of Life Medical Sciences, Inc.


April 21, 2005                            /s/ Robert P. Hickey
                                          -------------------------------------
                                          Name:  Robert P. Hickey
                                          Title: Chief Executive Officer
                                                 and Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-1392

DORA TOOLE ROUNDTREE,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

MARY WEBB; PAMELA GLOVER; JENNIFER HOLSTON,

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Aiken. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. 

(1:09-cv-03147-MBS)

Submitted: August 19, 2010 Decided: August 27, 2010

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dora Toole Roundtree, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Dora Toole Roundtree appeals the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

dismissing without prejudice her civil complaint, and the 

district court’s subsequent order denying reconsideration. The 

district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2010). The 

magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised 

Roundtree that failure to file timely objections to this 

recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court 

order based upon the recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a 

magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve 

appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when 

the parties have been warned of the consequences of 

noncompliance. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th 

Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). 

Roundtree has waived appellate review by failing to file 

objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we 

affirm the orders of the district court. 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
        Exhibit 27.1, Financial Data Sheet
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000351721
<NAME>                        Advanced Neuromodulation Systems, Inc.



<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                   DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                      JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                        MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                                8,555,350
<SECURITIES>                                            425,462
<RECEIVABLES>                                         3,431,735
<ALLOWANCES>                                            136,432
<INVENTORY>                                           6,154,370
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     20,088,918
<PP&E>                                                7,475,050
<DEPRECIATION>                                        1,913,497
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       42,988,408
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 2,907,893
<BONDS>                                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                                   0
<COMMON>                                                435,418
<OTHER-SE>                                           37,352,986
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         42,988,408
<SALES>                                               5,598,864
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      5,598,864
<CGS>                                                 1,848,596
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         3,560,388
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      (128,057)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         317,937
<INCOME-TAX>                                            136,805
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     181,132
<DISCONTINUED>                                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                               0
<CHANGES>                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                            181,132
<EPS-BASIC>                                                 .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                               .02



</TABLE>
#### Carey, Respondeat, vs. The Phenix Insurance Company of Brooklyn, N. Y., Appellant.

*January 10*

*January 31, 1893.*

*Insurance against fire: Change in possession by legal process: Waiver of forfeiture.*

*Carey v. German Am. Ins. Co., ante,*p. 80, followed.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for *Winnebago*County.

■Action upon a policy of insurance against fire. The defendant appeals from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

The cause was submitted for the appellant on briefs by *Myl/rea, Marehetti c& Bird,*and for the respondent on the brief of *John J. Wood, Jr.,*attorney, and *Gale Bouelc,*of counsel.

Orton, J.

The insurance in this case is upon the same property as in that of *Carey v. German Am. Ins. Co., ante,*p. 80, and the same questions are involved, and this case is ruled in all respects by the decision in that case. It was held in that case, and now held in this, that the insurance policy was forfeited by a change in the possession of the property insured “ by legal process,” which took place in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy; and that such forfeiture was not waived by the local agent of the company who negotiated the insurance, because such waiver was not indorsed on the policy in writing, as required by the policy. The judgment ought to have been in favor of the company.

This having been a jury case, according to the rule of this court it must be remanded for a new trial, but there is really no need for a new trial before a jury. In such case, however, the court should direct the jury to find a *209verdict for the defendant, and, if the jury is waived, render judgment in favor of the defendant.

*By the Court.—*The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D19-1652

_____________________________

RYAN F. BOUCHER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County.

Christopher N. Patterson, Judge.

October 14, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, MAKAR, and JAY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Ryan F. Boucher, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Anne C. Conley, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.