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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998             JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998             MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                               0                 151,458
<SECURITIES>                                         0                   7,250
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                  37,065
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                   1,750
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0                 235,365
<PP&E>                                               0                  54,958
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0                 651,707
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0                 204,802
<BONDS>                                              0                  55,058
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                     360
<OTHER-SE>                                           0                 391,487
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0                 651,707
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                52,682                 165,907
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   44,934                 139,046
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,748                  26,861
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,414                  11,690
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,334                  15,171
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,334                  15,171
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.12                    0.43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.12                    0.43
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATEPURSUANT TORULES 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a),AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Paul A. Bragg,certify that:

1.     I havereviewed this transition report on Form 10-K of Vantage Energy Services, Inc.;

2.                Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.                Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.                I am responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and I have:

(a)           Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

(b)          Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and

(c)           Disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.                The registrant’sother certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):

(a)           All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

(b)          Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
| September 26, 2007 | /s/ PAUL  A. BRAGG                |
|-------------------------|----------------------------------------|
|                    | Paul A. Bragg                          |
|                    | *Chairman and Chief Executive Officer* |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>
 
<ARTICLE>      5 
<LEGEND>  THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
          FROM THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
          OPERATIONS INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD
          ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
          REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000 
       
<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                            APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         36,739
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  49,023
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                    27,107
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              126,012
<PP&E>                                        328,547
<DEPRECIATION>                                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                460,938
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          29,771
<BONDS>                                       230,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                           44
<OTHER-SE>                                    174,962
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  460,938
<SALES>                                       183,556
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              183,556
<CGS>                                         158,974
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 158,974
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               31,781
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              8,168
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (15,367)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (4,610)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (10,757)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (10,757)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  ($0.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  ($0.25)
         

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 39 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.Con.Res.39
                                      Agreed to January 22, 1996        

                       One Hundred Fourth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
   the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-six

                          Concurrent Resolution

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That the two Houses of Congress assemble in the Hall of the House of 
Representatives on Tuesday, January 23, 1996, at 9 p.m., for the 
purpose of receiving such communication as the President of the United 
States shall be pleased to make to them.
  Attest:

                                               Secretary of the Senate.

  Attest:

                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.
```
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Johnny Madison WILLIAMS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 15-30379

15-30380

15-30381

15-30382

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2017 *

Filed March 22, 2017

Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

In these consolidated appeals, Johnny Madison Williams, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion to correct the judgment under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm,

Williams contends that the amended judgment should be corrected to apportion his 1104-month aggregate sentence be*662tween his various crimes of conviction. We review for clear error. *See United States v. Dickie,*752 F.2d 1398, 1400 (9th Cir. 1985). Williams is not entitled to relief, because he has not identified any clerical error in the amended judgment. Rather, the amended judgment accurately reflects the district court’s oral pronouncement of Williams’s sentence. *See*Fed. R. Crim. P. 36; *United States v. Penna,*319 F.3d 509, 513 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Rule 36 is a vehicle for correcting *clerical*mistakes but it may not be used to correct judicial errors in sentencing.”).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,
# L_2006311DE.01005801.xml

| 10.11.2006 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 311/58 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2006

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 311/58

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1636/2001 der Kommission vom 23. Juli 2001 zur Änderung der Verordnung (EWG) Nr. 2018/91 des Rates über die Vorlage von Statistiken über die Fangmengen und die Fischereitätigkeit der Mitgliedstaaten, die im Nordwestatlantik Fischfang betreiben

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Gemeinschaften L 222 vom 17. August 2001
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Gemeinschaften L 222 vom 17. August 2001

| 1. | Seite 1, Titel der Verordnung: |
| --- | --- |

1.

Seite 1, Titel der Verordnung:

anstatt:

„... zur Änderung der Verordnung (EWG) Nr. 2018/91 des Rates über ...“

muss es heißen:

„... zur Änderung der Verordnung (EWG) Nr. 2018/93 des Rates über...“

| 2. | Auf Seite 7, Anhang II, Unterzone 0, ist der einleitende Satz durch den folgenden Text zu ersetzen: |
| --- | --- |

2.

Auf Seite 7, Anhang II, Unterzone 0, ist der einleitende Satz durch den folgenden Text zu ersetzen:

„Der Teil des Übereinkommensgebiets, der im Süden durch eine Linie begrenzt wird, die in östlicher Richtung von einem Punkt 61°00′ nördlicher Breite und 65°00′ westlicher Länge bis zu einem Punkt 61°00′ nördlicher Breite und 59°00′ westlicher Länge verläuft, von dort in südöstliche Richtung entlang einer Kompasslinie zu einem Punkt 60°12′ nördlicher Breite und 57°13′ westlicher Länge; von dort wird es im Osten durch eine Reihe geodätischer Linien, die die folgenden Punkte verbinden, begrenzt:“

| 3. | Seite 10, Anhang II, „Unterzone 3“, Abteilung 3M: |
| --- | --- |

3.

Seite 10, Anhang II, „Unterzone 3“, Abteilung 3M:

anstatt:

„...49° 14 ...“

muss es heißen:

„...49° 15 ...“

| 4. | Seite 11, Anhang II, „Unterzone 4“: |
| --- | --- |

4.

Seite 11, Anhang II, „Unterzone 4“:

anstatt:

„... Längenkreis 68°24′27,24 westlicher Länge ...“

muss es heißen:

„... Längenkreis 67°24′27,24 westlicher Länge ...“

---
# EUR-Lex - 32001R0848 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32001R0848

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 848/2001 of 30 April 2001 fixing the storage aid for unprocessed dried grapes and unprocessed dried figs from the 2000/01 marketing year **

*
Official Journal L 121 , 01/05/2001 P. 0015 - 0015 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 848/2001

of 30 April 2001

fixing the storage aid for unprocessed dried grapes and unprocessed dried figs from the 2000/01 marketing year

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the market in processed fruit and vegetable products(1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2699/2000(2), and in particular Article 9(8) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Article 9(4) of Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 provides for aid to be granted to storage agencies for the quantities of sultanas, currants and dried figs that they buy in and for the actual duration of storage.

(2) Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 504/97 of 19 March 1997 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 as regards the system of production aid for products processed from fruit and vegetables(3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1607/1999(4), lays down the dates of the marketing years.

(3) The storage aid for unprocessed dried grapes and unprocessed dried figs from the 2000/01 marketing year should be fixed and, to that end, account should be taken of Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1622/1999 of 23 July 1999 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 as regards the scheme for the storage of unprocessed dried grapes and unprocessed dried figs(5) and of the fact that the storage aid is to be calculated on the basis of the technical cost of storage and of financing the buying-in price paid for the products.

(4) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Processed Fruit and Vegetables,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For products from the 2000/01 marketing year, the storage aid provided for in Article 9(4) of Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 shall be:

(a) EUR 0,1446 per day and per tonne net weight until 28 February 2002 and EUR 0,1185 per day and per tonne net weight from 1 March 2002 for dried grapes;

(b) EUR 0,1328 per day and per tonne net weight for dried figs.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 30 April 2001.

For the Commission

Franz Fischler

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 297, 21.11.1996, p. 29.

(2) OJ L 311, 12.12.2000, p. 9.

(3) OJ L 78, 20.3.1997, p. 14.

(4) OJ L 190, 23.7.1999, p. 11.

(5) OJ L 192, 24.7.1999, p. 33.
#### Richard Lavonte BLANKS, Sr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden GRAHAM; Brian Frosh, The Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 16-7693

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 22, 2017

Decided: May 30, 2017

Richard Lavonte Blanks, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Ap-pellee.

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Richard Lavonte Blanks, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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 petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that, even if Blanks could show that he was entitled to equitable tolling rendering his petition timely, he has not made the requisite showing of the denial of a constitutional right. According*840ly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 962 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 962

 To extend authorities under the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act of 
                      1994 until August 15, 1995.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                June 23 (legislative day, June 19), 1995

    Mr. Helms introduced the following bill; which was read twice, 
              considered, read the third time, and passed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To extend authorities under the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act of 
                      1994 until August 15, 1995.
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITIES.

    Section 583 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal 
Years 1994 and 1995 (Public Law 103-236) is amended by striking ``July 
1, 1995'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``August 15, 1995''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.1/32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Loreto Resources Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Luis F. Saenz, Chief Executive Officer and Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that;





(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





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.





/s/ Luis F. SaenzName:
Luis F. SaenzTitle:
Chief Executive Officer andInterim Chief Financial OfficerDate:
April 12, 2011
Connecticut Department of



### ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL 

### PROTECTION

Hearing Officer Delegation

In accordance with the provisions of section 22a-2 of the Connecticut General Statutes, I hereby appoint Michael Geigert of the Bureau of Air Management as a hearing officer with the authority to oversee the public review process and conduct a public hearing on April 5, 2012, should such a hearing be requested. The public review process will address a revision to the State Implementation Plan for air quality, specifically a request to EPA to redesignate portions of Connecticut from nonattainment to attainment with respect to the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PMa.s National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Michael Geigert is also authorized to render a recommended decision concerning the proposed redesignation request.

Date Deputy Commissioner
#### Aaron L. STRIBLING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C. TOBIAS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-16738

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 8, 2017 *

Filed May 11, 2017

Aaron L. Stribling, Pro Se

Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Aaron L. Stri-bling appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. *Resnick v. Hayes,*213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Stribling’s due process claim involving a rules violation because Stribling failed to allege facts sufficient to show a protected liberty interest. *See Sandin v. Conner,*515 U.S. 472, 483-85, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995) (a prisoner has no federal or state protected liberty interest when the sanction imposed neither extends *973the length of his sentence nor imposes an “atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life”); *see also Hebbe v. Pliler,*627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are to' be liberally construed, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in severing the excessive force claims against defendants Blessing, DeFa-zio, and Guffee because Stribling failed to demonstrate that these claims arose out of the “same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences” and involve a “question of law or fact common to all defendants.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2); *see also Coughlin v. Rogers,*130 F.3d 1348, 1351 (9th Cir. 1997) (setting forth standard of review and explaining the requirements for permissive joinder).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.