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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997             JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           6,973                   6,973
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,135                  12,135
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                      4,432                   4,432
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                24,794                  24,794
<PP&E>                                         231,001                 231,001
<DEPRECIATION>                                  21,230                  21,230
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 266,810                 266,810
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           65,276                  65,276
<BONDS>                                          7,507                   7,507
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                           141                     141
<OTHER-SE>                                     181,875                 181,875
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   266,810                 266,810
<SALES>                                         10,901                  16,225
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                46,296                  51,671
<CGS>                                            6,226                   9,402
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   28,331                  36,312
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  48                    (77)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 17,917                  15,436
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,988                   6,018
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,929                   9,418
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,929                   9,418
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .80                     .70
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .80                     .70
        

</TABLE>
#### Majied LEWIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHESAPEAKE POLICE, K9 UNIT BOOMER, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-7328

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 22, 2018

Decided: February 27, 2018

Majied Lewis, Appellant Pro Se.

Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Majied Lewis appeals the magistrate judge’s order denying his motion to compel discovery. On appeal, we confíne our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. *See*4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Lewis’ informal brief does not challenge the basis for the court’s disposition, Lewis has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. *See Williams v. Giant Food Inc.,*370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pau-peris and affirm the magistrate judge’s order. 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.

*AFFIRMED*
EXHIBIT 11
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                   GATEWAY  BANCSHARES,  INC.
               CONSOLIDATED  STATEMENT  RE  COMPUTATION  OF  EARNINGS  PER SHARE
                                          (unaudited)


The  following  tabulation  presents  the  calculation of basic and diluted earnings per common
share  for  the  three-  and  'six-month  periods  ended  June  30,  2001  and  2000.


                                                      Three Months Ended     Six Months Ended
                                                     --------------------  --------------------
                                                     June 30,   June 30,   June 30,   June 30,
                                                       2001       2000       2001       2000
                                                     ---------  ---------  ---------  ---------
<S>                                                  <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>
Basic net income                                     $ 176,637  $ 224,014  $ 340,451  $ 385,701
                                                     =========  =========  =========  =========

Basic earnings on common shares                      $ 176,637  $ 224,014  $ 340,451  $ 385,701
                                                     =========  =========  =========  =========

Weighted average common shares outstanding, basic      679,048    679,048    679,048    679,048
                                                     =========  =========  =========  =========

Basic earnings per common share                      $    0.26  $    0.33  $    0.50  $    0.57
                                                     =========  =========  =========  =========

Basic net income per common share                    $    0.26  $    0.33  $    0.50  $    0.57
                                                     =========  =========  =========  =========

Diluted net income                                   $ 176,637  $ 224,014  $ 340,451  $ 385,701
                                                     =========  =========  =========  =========

Diluted earnings on common shares                    $ 176,637  $ 224,014  $ 340,451  $ 385,701
                                                     =========  =========  =========  =========

Weighted average common shares outstanding, diluted    681,842    680,466    682,006    680,595
                                                     =========  =========  =========  =========

Diluted earnings per common share                    $    0.26  $    0.33  $    0.50  $    0.57
                                                     =========  =========  =========  =========

Diluted net income per common share                  $    0.26  $    0.33  $    0.50  $    0.57
                                                     =========  =========  =========  =========
</TABLE>


                                      -17-
<PAGE>
The Honorable Robert M. Summers, Ph.D.

Secretary, Maryland Department ofthe Environment

1800 Washington Boulevard

Baltimore, Maryland 21230

Dear Secretary Summers:

By letter and enclosures dated March 4, 2011, the Maryland Department ofthe

Environment (MDE) submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency — Region III (EPA)

a data completeness substitution package for the Rockville ambient air ozone monitoring site(AIRS ID# 24-031-3001) in accordance with the regulatory requirements of 40 CFR Part 50

Appendix I. 2.3(b) — National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards.40 CFR Part 50 Appendix I. 2.3(b) requires:

•

.When computing whether the minimum data completeness requirements have been

met, meteorological or ambient data may be sufficient to demonstrate that meteorological

conditions on missing days were not conducive to concentrations above the level ofthe

standard. Missing days assumed less than the level ofthe standard are counted for the

purpose ofmeeting the data completeness requirement, subject to the approval oftheappropriate Regional Administrator.”

The MDE data substitution package contained documentation and a statistical correlation

analysis showing that ifthe Rockville ozone monitor was in operation, there was a strong

probability it would not have exceeded the 1997 8-hour ozone standard of 0.08 parts per million.

This was substantiated by MDE providing statistical correlation ofreported ozone concentrationsat nearby monitoring sites and comparing it to the collected Rockville ozone data over an eight

year period. Based on our review, EPA approves MDE’s request to allow missing ambient air

ozone concentrations for the following days in 2007 to be counted when calculating yearly data

completeness requirements ofthe CFR:

Printed on 100% recycled/recyclablepaper with 100% post-consumerfiber andprocess chlorinefree.

Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474
6/9/07—6/10/07 2

6/12/07—6/14/07 3

Total 57

If you have any questions regarding this approval action, please do not hesitate to

contact Ms. Diana Esher, Director, Air Protection Division, at (215) 814-2706 orMr. Walter K. Wilkie, Associate Director ofthe Office of Air Monitoring and Analysis,at (215) 814-2150.

naiAdmimf

cc: Mr. Michael Woodman, MDE

Mr. David Krask, MDE
**EXHIBIT ITEM 32.1**

 

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

 

Thecertification set forth below is being submitted to the Securities and ExchangeCommission solely for the purpose of complying with Section 1350 of Chapter 63of Title 18 of the United States Code.

 

August11, 2005

 

CharlesT. Chrietzberg, Jr., the Chief Executive Officer of Northern CaliforniaBancorp, Inc. certifies:

 

a.               thatthis periodic report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

b.              thatinformation contained in this periodic report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of NorthernCalifornia Bancorp, Inc.

 
|   | /s/ Charles T.  Chrietzberg, Jr.         |   |
|--------|------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Charles T. Chrietzberg,  Jr.             |
|   | *Chief Executive Officer  and President* |

 

1

----
# Official Journal C 213/2014

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 213 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 578 July 2014 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 213

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 578 July 2014

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Council |
| 2014/C 213/01 | Council conclusions on nutrition and physical activity | 1 |
| | European Commission |
| 2014/C 213/02 | Euro exchange rates | 7 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Council

2014/C 213/01

Council conclusions on nutrition and physical activity

1

European Commission

2014/C 213/02

Euro exchange rates

7

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Commission |
| 2014/C 213/03 | Call for proposals under the work programme of the ECSEL Joint Undertaking | 8 |
| 2014/C 213/04 | Call for proposals under the work programme of the ECSEL Joint Undertaking | 8 |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2014/C 213/05 | Prior notification of a concentration — Case M.7284 — Siemens/John Wood Group/Rolls-Royce Combined ADGT Business/RWG (1) | 9 |
| 2014/C 213/06 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7261 — Goldman Sachs/Blackstone/Ipreo) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1) | 11 |

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Commission

2014/C 213/03

Call for proposals under the work programme of the ECSEL Joint Undertaking

8

2014/C 213/04

Call for proposals under the work programme of the ECSEL Joint Undertaking

8

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2014/C 213/05

Prior notification of a concentration — Case M.7284 — Siemens/John Wood Group/Rolls-Royce Combined ADGT Business/RWG (1)

9

2014/C 213/06

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7261 — Goldman Sachs/Blackstone/Ipreo) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1)

11

---

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
No. 11-11029.

#### Favors *v.*Curling et al.

C. A. 6th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*denied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court’s Rule 39.8.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lamont Delmar PARKER, a/k/a Monster, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-7041

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: December 29, 2017

Decided: January 30, 2018

*120Lamont Delmar Parker, Appellant Pro Se.. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Seth Morgan Wood, Assistant United States Attorneys, Joshua Bryan Royster, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before KING and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Lamont Delmar Parker seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his authorized, successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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 motion 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 Parker has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Parker’s motion for a certificate of appealability, deny the pending motion to seal this court’s docket and all materials' filed in this court, 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*
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6774

JOHNIE B. ERWIN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

FRANK L. PERRY; W. DAVID GUICE; LARRY DUNSTON; BETTY BROWN,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:14-ct-03136-H)

Submitted: November 30, 2017 Decided: February 6, 2018

Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Johnie B. Erwin, Appellant Pro Se. Kimberly D. Grande, NORTH CAROLINA 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Johnie B. Erwin appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his complaint 

asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) and the Religious Land Use and 

Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc to 2000cc-5 (2012). We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons 

stated by the district court. Erwin v. Perry, No. 5:14-ct-03136-H (E.D.N.C. June 8, 

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.

AFFIRMED
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

 FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

KELLY ELIZABETH LOUDERMILK,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D16-728

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Opinion filed February 24, 2017

Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Osceola County,

A. James Craner, Judge.

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and 

Kathryn Rollison Radtke, Assistant Public 

Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Pamela J. Koller, 

Assistant Attorney General, Daytona 

Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM. 

Kelly Elizabeth Loudermilk appeals her judgment and sentence for trafficking in 

oxycodone and conspiracy to traffic in oxycodone. Loudermilk contends that the trial 

court erred in: 1) denying her motion for continuance to secure the testimony of two 

codefendants that she alleged would support an entrapment defense; and 2) applying the 
2

incorrect legal standard to her motion for new trial. We affirm as to the first issue without 

further discussion but reverse and remand as to the second.

The proper standard to address a defendant’s motion for new trial is the weight of 

the evidence. See Lee v. State, 117 So. 3d 848, 849 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013); Santiago v. 

State, 874 So. 2d 617, 625 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). In this case, the trial court incorporated 

its order denying Loudermilk’s motion for judgment of acquittal, in which it applied a 

sufficiency of the evidence standard, into its order denying her motion for new trial. 

Accordingly, these orders suggest that the trial court also utilized a sufficiency of the 

evidence standard when considering Loudermilk’s motion for new trial. We therefore 

reverse and remand on this issue for the trial court to consider Loudermilk’s motion for 

new trial pursuant to the weight of the evidence standard. See King v. State, 183 So. 3d 

1071, 1072 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015).

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED.

SAWAYA, TORPY and BERGER, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT  99.1


                            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 on Form 10-QSB for the six-month period
ended June 30, 2003 of Equicap, Inc., a California corporation (the "Company"),
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Quarterly Report"), I Stephen M. Siedow, Chief Executive Officer and 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 Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
     or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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


Dated:  July 15, 2003


                                     /s/ Stephen M. Siedow
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     Stephen M. Siedow, Chief Executive
                                     Officer and Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 99.1

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


Each of 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, that this
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2002 fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in such report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.

This  9th  day  of  August,  2002.


/s/  Robert G. Peck
---------------------
President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)

/s/  Harle B. Green
---------------------
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)


<PAGE>
#### Natasha SHPAK; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Malcolm CURTIS and Judith Curtis, Defendants-Appellants, and Belzona Systems of California, Inc.; et al., Defendants.

No. 16-56323

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 8, 2018 * Pasadena, California

Filed February 12, 2018

Randy Kornfeld, Kornfeld and Associates, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs-Appel-lees

Rebekah L. Parker, Bankruptcy Counsel, Law Office of Rebekah L. Parker, Oceanside, CA, for .Defendants-Appellants

Rebekah L. Parker, Bankruptcy Counsel, Law Office of Rebekah L. Parker, Oceanside, CA, for Defendants

Before: GRABER and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and MARBLEY, ** District Judge.

*

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

**

The Honorable Algenon L. Marbley, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.

ORDER ***

This is an appeal from the district court’s rejection of a “notice of removal,” which sought to “remove” an action pending in the Upited States District Court for the Eastern District of New York to. the Central District of California. The notice, however denominated, was in substance a motion to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), and the district court’s order thus effectively was a denial of the requested transfer. That order was not a final judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. *See Pac. Car & Foundry Co. v. Pence,*403 F.2d 949, 951 (9th Cir. 1968) (“[O]rders respecting venue entered under § 1404(a) and § 1406(a) are interlocutory in nature and are not appealable prior to final judgment.”). We therefore dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. This order shall constitute the mandate of this court.

***

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

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. RES. 320

Authorizing the printing of a Senate document.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 3, 1996

Mr. LOTT (for Mr. HATFIELD) submitted the following resolution; which was

considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

Authorizing the printing of a Senate document.

1 Resolved, That there be printed with illustrations as

2 a Senate document a compilation of materials entitled

3 ‘‘Committee on Appropriations, United States Senate,

4 129th Anniversary, 1867–1996’’, and that there be print5 ed two thousand additional copies of such document for

6 the use of the Committee on Appropriations.

Æ
No. D-2659.

#### In re Disbarment of Douglas.

Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 566 U. S. 934.]