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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<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>                                           6,799
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           3,866
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                        336
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          91,973
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            90,611
<LOANS>                                        405,061
<ALLOWANCE>                                       1243
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 519,765
<DEPOSITS>                                     431,412
<SHORT-TERM>                                     3,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              3,132
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        42,185
<OTHER-SE>                                      40,036
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 519,765
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  8,220
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,452
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    43
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 9,715
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               5,560
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,573
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            4,142
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  2,112
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,348
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,510
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,510
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .33
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.80
<LOANS-NON>                                        816
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    747
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,251
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       11
<RECOVERIES>                                         3
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 1243
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               409
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            834
        

</TABLE>
IV

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 115

Recognizing Grand Haven, Michigan, as ‘‘Coast Guard City, USA’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 15, 1997

Mr. HOEKSTRA (for himself, Mr. BARCIA, Mr. CAMP, Mr. EHLERS, Mr.

KNOLLENBERG, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. SMITH of Michigan, Ms. STABENOW,

Mr. STUPAK, and Mr. UPTON) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Recognizing Grand Haven, Michigan, as ‘‘Coast Guard City,

USA’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Coast Guard City,

5 USA, Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

7 The Congress makes the following findings:
2

•HCON 115 IH

1 (1) The people of Grand Haven, Michigan, have

2 always held a deep affection for the Coast Guard

3 and the men and women who serve in it.

4 (2) This affection has been demonstrated

5 throughout this century, first with a small commu6 nity picnic, then with the welcoming of the Coast

7 Guard Cutter Escanaba in 1932.

8 (3) This affection was never more deeply ex9 pressed than on August 4, 1943, when citizens of

10 the Grand Haven area assembled not only to cele11 brate Coast Guard Day, as they had done for years,

12 but also to remember and pay tribute to those who

13 had lost their lives in service to their country when

14 the Escanaba was torpedoed and sank in the North

15 Atlantic during World War II.

16 (4) The people of Grand Haven again dem17 onstrated their love and resolve for the Coast Guard

18 amidst this tragedy by raising $1,000,000 in war

19 bonds to purchase a replacement cutter the following

20 year.

21 (5) The people of Grand Haven continue to

22 demonstrate their respect for the Coast Guard by

23 paying tribute in a memorial service during the an24 nual Grand Haven Coast Guard Festival to those

25 who lost their lives aboard the Escanaba and all men
3

•HCON 115 IH

1 and women who have died serving their country in

2 the Coast Guard.

3 (6) The memorial service is the primary pur4 pose of the annual Grand Haven Coast Guard Fes5 tival.

6 (7) As part of the 1963 Coast Guard Festival

7 events, Admiral Richard Schmidtman referred to

8 Grand Haven as ‘‘Coast Guard City, USA’’ in rec9 ognition of the attention paid to the Coast Guard

10 each year by the city and surrounding communities.

11 (8) Many in the Coast Guard continue to call

12 Grand Haven ‘‘Coast Guard City, USA’’.

13 (9) People in and around the community of

14 Grand Haven know the city as ‘‘Coast Guard City,

15 USA’’.

16 (10) The Coast Guard has expressed its enthu17 siastic support for official recognition of the city as

18 ‘‘Coast Guard City, USA’’ due to its long history

19 and close relationship with the community of Grand

20 Haven.

21 SEC. 3. NATIONAL RECOGNITION.

22 The community of Grand Haven, Michigan, shall be

23 recognized as ‘‘Coast Guard City, USA’’.

Æ
#### Roger Earl COLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of NORTH CAROLINA; Judge W. Russell Duke, Jr., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-7485

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: December 19, 2017

Decided: December 28, 2017

Roger Earl Coley, Appellant Pro Se.

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges,

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Roger Earl Coley appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint without prejudice as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012) and denying his motion for medical records. We have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. *Coley v. North Carolina,*No. 5:17-ct-03109-D (E.D.N.C. Oct. 18, 2017). 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*
# Official Journal L 170/2009

| | ISSN 1725-2555
  doi:10.3000/17252555.L_2009.170.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 170 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5230 June 2009 |

ISSN 1725-2555

doi:10.3000/17252555.L_2009.170.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 170

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5230 June 2009

---

| Contents | | I   Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is obligatory | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | DIRECTIVES |
| | * | Directive 2009/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 on the safety of toys (1) | 1 |

Contents

I   Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is obligatory

page

DIRECTIVES

*

Directive 2009/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 on the safety of toys (1)

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
Exhibit 4.1


 


 


THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON


NEW YORK’S FIRST BANK-FOUNDED 1784 BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON


 


 


2 HANSON PLACE, 12TH FLOOR, BROOKLYN,
N.Y. 11217


 


 


 


November 22, 2017


 


Hennion & Walsh, Inc.


2001 Route 46, Waterview Plaza


Parsippany, New Jersey 07054


 


Smart Trust 352


 


Dear Sirs:


The Bank of New York
Mellon is acting as trustee for the series of Smart Trust set forth above (the “Trust”). We enclosed a list
of the Securities to be deposited in the Trust on the date hereof. The prices indicated therein reflect
our evaluation of such Securities as of close of business on November 21, 2017, in accordance with the valuation method set forth
in the Standard Terms and Conditions of Trust and Trust Agreement. We consent to the reference to The Bank of New York Mellon as
the party performing the evaluations of the Trust Securities in the Registration Statement (No. 333-220273) filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission with respect to the registration of the sale of the Trust Units and to the filing of this consent as an
exhibit thereto.


 


 


	Very truly yours,
	 
	/s/
    GERARDO CIPRIANO
	Gerardo Cipriano
	Vice President
#### Ranjit Singh GHOTRA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-73146

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted November 15, 2017 *

Filed November 20, 2017

Dominic Edward Capeci, Esquire, Attorney, The Law Offices of Dominic E. Cape-ci, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner

Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Stratton Christopher Strand, Trial Attorney, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM**

Ranjit Singh Ghotra, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.

In assessing Ghotra’s claim -of ineffective assistance of counsel, the BIA did not have the benefit of *Barajas-Romero v. Lynch,*846 F.3d 351 (9th Cir. 2017), which holds that the “one central reason” standard applies to asylum but not to withholding of removal. In addition, the BIA did not address whether the proposed particular social group was cognizable. Because the BIA’s rejection of Ghotra’s ineffective assistance claim relies in part on the agency’s underlying denial of withholding of removal for failure to show “one central reason” and because the BIA did not address whether Ghotra’s proposed particular social group is cognizable, we remand for the BIA to address his ineffective assistance claim.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

**

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

**EXHIBIT 32**

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO  RULE 13a-14(b)/15d-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-Kof **Preferential Equity Corp**. (the“Company”) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Harry Miller, certify, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) orRule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. 1350, thatto 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; and

(2) 

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

Date: March 31, 2011
/s/ Harry Miller
Harry Miller, President  (Chief Executive Officer) 

Date: March 31, 2011

/s/ Harry Miller
Harry Miller, President  (Principal Financial Officer)

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant toRule 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18U.S.C. Section 1350 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposesof Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.**
**Exhibit 35.2**

** **

**WASHINGTON MUTUAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORP.**

** **

**OFFICER’S CERTIFICATEANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE**

 

            I, Barbara Campbell, an authorized officer of Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp. (the “AdministrativeAgent”), do hereby certify to WaMu Asset Acceptance Corp. (the “Depositor”) and Washington Mutual Bank (the “Servicer”), pursuant to the Administrative Agent Agreement dated as of April 1, 2006 (the “ServicingAgreement”) by and between the Servicer and the Administrative Agent the following with respect to Washington Mutual Asset-Backed Certificates Series 2006-HE5 Trust for the 2006 fiscal year (the “Relevant Year”):

 

1.        A review of the activities of the Servicer during the Relevant Year and of performance under the ServicingAgreement has been made under my supervision.

2.        To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under theServicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the Relevant Year.

 

Dated as of March 1, 2007.

 
|  

__/s/ Barbara Campbell________________

Name:  Barbara Campbell

Title:    First Vice President |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 11-30988 Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. KENNAIRE MATHIEU, also known as Bull Mathieu, Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:09-CR-391-10
Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender ap p o i nted to represent Kennaire Mathieu has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders

v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Mathieu has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevan t p ortions of the record reflected therein. We concur with
c o u n s el’ s a s s e s s m e nt that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D June 19 , 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-30988 Document: 00511891083 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/19/2012No. 11-30988

counsel is excused from further responsibilities he r e i n, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See5 T H C I R
. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 11-30988 Document: 00511891083 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/19/2012
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

 

**Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)**

 

The undersigned executive officer of FirstFederal Bancshares of Arkansas, Inc. (the “Registrant”) hereby certifies thatthe Registrant’s Form 10-Q for the three and nine months ended September 30,2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained thereinfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Registrant.

 

 
|   |             | By:    |   /s/ Sherri R. Billings  |
|--------|------------------|--------|-------------------------------------|
|   |             |   |   Sherri R. Billings      |
|   |             |   |   Chief Financial Officer |
|   |             |   |                                |
| Date:  | October 31, 2007 |   |                                |

 

----
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

 

**Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of First Federal Bancshares of Arkansas, Inc. (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), the undersigned certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as added by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

b)             The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant as of and for the period covered by the Report.

 

 
| Date:  | May 2,   2011 | /s/   Sherri R. Billings                       |
|--------|--------------------|------------------------------------------------|
|   |               | Sherri   R. Billings   Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
----

Declaration by the Slovak Republic pursuant to Article 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community

(2006/C 40/03)

I.   LEGISLATION AND SCHEMES REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 4(1) AND (2) OF REGULATION (EEC) No 1408/71

1.   Sickness and Maternity Insurance

2.   Invalidity benefits

3.   Old-age benefits

4.   Survivor's benefits

5.   Accidents at work and occupational diseases

6.   Unemployment benefits

7.   Family benefits

8.   Death grants

II.   MINIMUM BENEFITS REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 50 OF REGULATION (EEC) No 1408/71

Not applicable

III.   BENEFITS REFERRED TO IN ARTICLES 77 AND 78 OF REGULATION (EEC) No 1408/71

1.   Benefits referred to in Article 77

2.   Benefits referred to in Article 78

IV.   SPECIAL NON-CONTRIBUTORY BENEFITS REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 4(2a) OF REGULATION (EEC) No 1408/71

Not applicable

----
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 18-815V

Filed: May 2, 2019

UNPUBLISHED

MICHELLE MARIE COBENAIS,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Special Processing Unit (SPU);

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS)

Troy Allen Poetz, Rajkowski Hansmeier Ltd., St. Cloud, MN, for petitioner.

Traci R. Patton, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

Dorsey, Chief Special Master:

On June 8, 2018, petitioner filed a petition for compensation under the National 

Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.,

2 (the “Vaccine 

Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered Guillain-Barre Syndrome (“GBS”) due to an 

influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered to her on October 7, 2015. Petition at 1. The 

case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On April 30, 2019, respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes

that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report

at 1. Specifically, “it is respondent’s position that petitioner has satisfied the criteria set 

forth in the recently revised Vaccine Injury Table (Table) and the Qualifications and Aids

 1 The undersigned intends to post this ruling on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website. This 

means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine 

Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, the 

disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, the undersigned 

agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from 

public access. Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this 

case, undersigned is required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in 

accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management 

and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). 

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755.
to Interpretation (QAI), which afford petitioner a presumption of causation if the onset of 

GBS occurs between three and forty-two days after a seasonal flu vaccination and there 

is no apparent alternative cause Id. at 8. Respondent further agrees that petitioner 

experienced sequelae of her GBS for more than six months and that petitioner has 

satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Vaccine Act. Id.

In view of respondent’s position and the evidence of record, the 

undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey

Nora Beth Dorsey

Chief Special Master
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ORALIA MUNOZ-LECHUGA,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-71768

Agency No. A098-451-412

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 19, 2010** 

Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

Oralia Munoz-Lechuga, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an

immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 

We grant and remand the petition for review.

FILED

AUG 02 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-71768

Because the BIA failed to address the ineffective assistance of counsel claim

raised by Munoz-Lechuga in her motion to accept her late-filed brief, we remand

for the BIA to consider her claim in the first instance. See Singh v. Gonzales, 416

F.3d 1006, 1015 (9th Cir. 2005).

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.