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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF SUPERIOR SERVICES, INC.
AS OF AND FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED 
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          19,804
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,883
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (843)
<INVENTORY>                                        865
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                39,066
<PP&E>                                         162,164
<DEPRECIATION>                                (55,048)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 178,812
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,279
<BONDS>                                          1,100
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           175
<OTHER-SE>                                     112,186
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   178,812
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                27,721
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,136
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   152
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  95
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,848
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,587
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,261
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,261
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .13
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 23.1





INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM'S CONSENT











We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement of Bridgeline Digital, Inc. on Form S-8 (No. 333-170819) of our report dated December 29, 2010, with respect to our audit of the consolidated financial statements of Bridgeline Digital, Inc. as of September 30, 2010 and for the year then ended, which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Bridgeline Digital, Inc. for the year ended September 30, 2010.








/s/ Marcum LLP


Marcum LLP





Boston, Massachusetts


December 29, 2010
October 21, 2015

Mr. Chuck Snow

Pilot

Earl Dudley, Inc.

5253 First Avenue North

Birmingham, AL 35121

Dear Mr. Snow :

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

§ § 61.3, 61.113(a)(b), 61.133(a), 91.7(a), 91.119, 91.151(a), and 91.401

– 91.417 of 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.

W hy We Can n o t Process Your Request

We received your June 15, 2015

, exemption request on behalf of Earl Dudley, Inc. filed in

D ocket No

. FAA− 20 15

− 3051 , 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 reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 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 requested 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 notif ying 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
#### IN RE: Otman A. BASIR, Appellant

2016-1724

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Filed: 05/06/2016

Before Newman, Dyk, and Wallaeh, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

Wallaeh, Circuit Judge.

The parties jointly move to remand the appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

The parties note that they recently conferred and agree that the Board’s decision should be vacated and the case should be remanded for reconsideration of rejected claims 20, 23, 26, 32, 35, 37-39, 42, 44, 45, 47, 59, 63, and 64 of U.S. Patent Application 12/126,045. ’

It is well settled that an agency may request a remand in order to further consider its position. *See SKF USA Inc. v. United States,*254 F.3d 1022, 1029 (Fed. Cir. 2001). It is further appropriate for a *907court of review to grant such relief where, as here, remanding the case may ultimately prove useful in review of the matter or conserve judicial economy. *Id.*

Upon consideration thereof,

It Is Ordered That:

(1) The motion to remand is granted.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          17,220
<SECURITIES>                                    11,889
<RECEIVABLES>                                   39,065
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                71,078
<PP&E>                                          18,094
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 107,604
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,631
<BONDS>                                          1,592
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      84,381
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   107,604
<SALES>                                         26,088
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                26,088
<CGS>                                            8,334
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,334
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                18,659
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (372)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (533)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,571
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,104)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,104)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.19)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit
      32





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





Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes- Oxley
      Act
      of 2002, I, David M. Goldenberg, Interim Chief Financial Officer of Advanced
      ID Corporation (the “Company"), hereby certify, that to the


best
      of
      my knowledge, the Quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the
      quarterly period ended June 30, 2006 (the "Report") fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
      and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.





Date:
      August 21, 2006





/s/David
      M. Goldenberg


David
      M.
      Goldenberg, Interim Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 35
                                   ----------



                       COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP


                              OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
                     ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MASTER SERVICER


                                   CWALT, INC.
                        ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2006-OA18
              MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-OA18


      The undersigned does hereby certify that the undersigned is an officer of
Countrywide GP, Inc., general partner of Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP
(the "Master Servicer"), and does hereby further certify pursuant to Section
3.16 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the above-captioned Series (the
"Agreement") that:

(i)    A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
calendar year and of the performance of the Master Servicer under the Agreement
has been made under my supervision; and

(ii)  To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has
fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects
throughout such calendar year.




/s/ Craig Baingo                                      Dated: March 14, 2007
-----------------


Craig Baingo
Executive Vice President, Finance
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

DANIEL GANT,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 195 EAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 3rd day of October, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
Endocrine Disruptor 

Screening Program:

Tier 1 Screening Battery (T1S)

C. Aubee, A. Blankinship, G. Akerman, T. Steeger

Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Battery Performance
Battery Performance: Goals

Presenters

• Thyroid Pathway: 

C. Aubee

• Androgen Pathway: 

A. Blankinship

• Estrogen Pathway: 

G. Akerman 

• Overall Conclusions: 

T. Steeger

 Evaluate “Complementary” 

relationships among 

responses within the assays

 Evaluate “Redundancy” of 

responses across the assays

 Considered whether or not it 

is possible to reduce the 

number of assays and still 

adequately identify potential 

interactions with E, A, or T 

hormonal pathways

2
Battery Performance

Used the 2008 FIFRA SAP report as a guide, and 

its concepts of:

• “Complementarity” = Concordance of endpoints within an 

assay, and

• “Redundancy” = Concordance of endpoints across the 

assays that are intended to evaluate an interaction within a 

particular pathway, E, A, or T

• “Complementarity” and “redundancy” were evaluated in 

context of different “modalities” that span multiple levels of 

biological organization — e.g., molecular, cellular, organ, 

and organism

• Responses evaluated for each hormonal class, E, A, and T

3
4

Battery Performance
Assay Type

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Basis of Causation

Receptor/Target 

Binding

Cell Signaling

Cell Response

Enzyme Activity

Organ Response

Male System 

Integrity

Female System 

Integrity

Development

(thyroid)

Comparative 

System Integrity

Key

1 = ER Receptor Binding

2 = AR Receptor Binding

3 = ER Signal

 Transduction

4 = Aromatase

5 = Steriodogenesis

 (H295R Cell line)

6 = Hershberger

7 = Uterotrophic

8 = Male Pubertal

9 = Female Pubertal

10 = Amphibian Metamorphosis

11 = Fish Reproduction

Redundancy

Complementarity

5

Battery Performance
Battery Performance

Interaction with the Estrogen Hormonal 

Pathway 18

Interaction with the Androgen Pathway 17

Interaction with the HPT Axis 16

*Overt Toxicity noted, but no detailed analysis —

Responses that co-occur with systemic toxicity will be 

presented in July 2013 SAP on WoE 

6

Number of Chemicals in Battery Performance Analysis
#### Nathan May, Resp’t, *v.*Bertha Hammerschlag, App’lt.

*(City Court of Brooklyn, General Term,*

*Filed May 25, 1891.)*

Appeal—Verdict.

Where in an action for goods sold and delivered there is a direct conflict in the testimony as to whether there was a sale or only a consignment of the goods, the verdict of the jury should he sustained.

Appeal from judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered on verdict, *,and from order denying motion for a new trial.

Action to recover a balance alleged to be due upon a sale by plaintiff’s assignor to defendant of butter and eggs. Defendant claimed that the goods were received by her on commission ; that she sold the same and had accounted therefor except to the extent of $1.40.

*Anthony Barrett,*for app’lt; *Ira Leo*Bamberger, for resp’t.

*489Per Curiam.

It is not stated in the appeal book that it contains all the evidence. *Cheney*v. *N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 16*Hun, 419. But, on the assumption that it does, we have considered the question pressed on the argument that the verdict was against the weight of evidence. We have carefully read and weighed all the testimony in the case. The conflict is direct between the witnesses as to whether there was a sale or consignment of the goods to defendant There áre circumstances tending to weaken the force of their testimony. But, on all the evidence, we are of the opinion that the decision of the jury who heard and saw these witnesses should be respected and upheld.

Judgment and -order affirmed, with costs.

Van Wyck and Osborne, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.0


November 13, 1998

Republic Bancshares, Inc.
111 2nd Avenue NE, Suite 300
St. Petersburg, FL  33701







Republic Bancshares, Inc.:

We are aware that Republic Bancshares, Inc. has incorporated, by reference in
its Registration Statement File No. 333-32151, its Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended September 30, 1998, which includes our report dated October 26, 1998,
covering the unaudited interim financial information contained therein. Pursuant
to Regulation C of the Securities Act of 1933 (the Act), that report is not
considered a part of the registration statement prepared or certified by our
firm or a report prepared or certified by our firm within the meaning of
Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.

Very truly yours,


ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-10823 Conference Calendar

JOHN ALDRIDGE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus CHARLES ROSSOTTI, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 7:00-CV-131-R

- - - - - - - - - - February 21, 2002 Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * John Aldridge appeals the district court’s dismissal of his Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) complaint against the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”). See 5 U.S.C. § 552. Aldridge contends that the IRS did not investigate or create an adequate record in response to his 1999 fraudulent-document complaint. Such claims are not cognizable under the FOIA. See Kissinger v. Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press , 445 U.S. 136, 150-51 (1980) (agency does not improperly “withhold” records that it does not possess); Goldgar v. OfficeNo. 01-10823 -2- of Admin., Executive Office of the President , 26 F.3d 32, 34-35 (5th Cir. 1994) (FOIA applies only to information kept in record form). In addition, Aldridge waived, by failing to argue, any challenge to the district court’s conclusion that the IRS was not improperly withholding agency records. See American States Ins. Co. v. Bailey , 133 F.3d 363, 372 (5th Cir. 1998) (failure to provide legal or factual analysis of issue results in its waiver). There was an adequate factual basis for the district court’s conclusion, and, consequently, the district court correctly held that it was divested of jurisdiction. See Goldgar , 26 F.3d at 34; see also Calhoun v. Lyng , 864 F.2d 34, 36 (5th Cir. 1988) (FOIA dismissal reviewed for clear error). To the extent Aldridge challenges any of the magistrate judge’s orders, those rulings are not directly appealable to this
court. Colburn v. Bunge Towing, Inc. , 883 F.2d 372, 379 (5th Cir. 1989). We decline to consider Aldridge’s untimely argument that the magistrate judge should have recused himself. See Clay v. Allen , 242 F.3d 679, 681 (5th Cir. 2001); United States v. Sanford , 157 F.3d 987, 988-89 (5th Cir. 1998). The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED

. All motions are DENIED.
BOB FILNER 

SI si Dis i RIP' I CALIFORNIA

VETFRANS AFFAIRS COMMIFFEE 

RANKING MEMBER 

'I RANSI'OR'I A i'ION AN!) INFRASTR( ('TURF'

('0MM!) Ti U 

A I I I IIIN


IIICIINA'l 'I'll) 'III \NSI I


V1 1111k, SHIRt IS ,\N11 ENS IIIIINMI NI 

I' IINOMII D,v, I I1PMI NI, PIll! II RI II DIN(,S,


NIl PHI 111,1 NI Y M SN 51,1 MI NI

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

September 12, 2011

2428 R ss H! RN H IIJSI Doll F B! ii 

WASHING GIN, DC 205)5 

TEl (202) 225 8)145 

FAX: (202) 225-907) 

33) F SiRoT, SF111 A

Cot I \ Vis I A, CAl.!! (IRNIA 9191))


'I'll (619) 422 5963


I' vx. (619) 422 729)) 

I 101 A111r'OFI I RI IAI), S iii D

IM p IRIAI CS! II'HRNIA 9225!


Tp i : (760) 355 88))!)


FAX: (760) 355 88(12 

website: www.house.gov/t'ilner

The Honorable Lisa Jackson 

Administrator 

Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. 

Washington, DC 20460 

Dear Administrator Jackson: 

I was recently contacted by Apex Power Group regarding their request for assistance 

in expediting their Prevention of Significant Deterioration permit for The Pio Pico 

Energy Center. 

Apex claims that the Environmental Protection Agency is not processing permits in a 

timely fashion and requests that they be informed on the status of their application. 

I would appreciate your kind attention to this matter. ff1 can be of any further 

assistance, please feel free to contact me or Tony Cruz of my staff at (619) 422-5963. 

BOB FILNER 

Member of Congress 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
#### DZ BANK AG DEUTSCHE ZENTRAL-GENOSSENSCHAFT BANK, Frankfurt am Main, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Louis Phillipus MEYER; Lynn Meyer, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-35086

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Filed August 24, 2017

Alex Darcy, Esquire, Askounis & Darcy, PC, Chicago, IL, Michael W. Johns, Attorney, Roberts Johns and Hemphill PLLC, Gig Harbor, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Marc S. Stern, Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: HAWKINS, GOULD, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

The memorandum filed on July 11, 2017 is withdrawn. An opinion is filed in its place, Any party may file a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc as allowed by the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 35, 40.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ANDRE VANCLIFF,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 282 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 11th day of September, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.

Justice Wecht did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
#### Michael D. FRAZIER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CITY OF GADSDEN, AL, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 16-13389, 16-17430

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(August 24, 2017)

Robert Brett Adair, Joseph H. Driver, Carr Allison, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Robbie Alexander Hyde, Alexander Hyde, LLC, Auburn, AL, Howard Edgar Howard, Ford Howard & Cornett, PC, Gadsden, AL, Jack Lee Roberts, Jr., City of Gadsden, City Attorney, Gadsden, AL, for Defendant-Appellant

Before WILSON and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges, and MORENO,* District Judge.

*

 Honorable Federico A. Moreno, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

The Gadsden Police Department denied Michael Frazier’s application for employment. Frazier then sued the City of Gadsden alleging race discrimination under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The case *980proceeded to trial, a jury found in Frazier’s favor, and the district court denied the City’s motion for judgment as a matter of law. This appeal followed.

The City raises several arguments on appeal, including (1) that the trial evidence was insufficient to support a finding of discrimination; (2) that dismissal is required because the City is not a proper defendant and because Frazier did not join the Civil Service Board, a necessary party; and (3) that the district court erred in awarding front pay. But after careful consideration of the record and the parties’ briefs, and having had the benefit of oral argument, we find no reversible error. Therefore, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.