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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0001027324
<NAME> MID-STATE BANCSHARES
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          56,080
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                17,500
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    433,898
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          31,383
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            31,075
<LOANS>                                        768,814
<ALLOWANCE>                                     13,105
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,355,218
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,168,454
<SHORT-TERM>                                    15,357
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             11,076
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        59,681
<OTHER-SE>                                     100,650
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,355,218
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 67,372
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               29,899
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 2,356
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                99,627
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              25,742
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              26,071
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           73,556
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       50
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 (5)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 57,488
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 33,483
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      22,053
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    22,053
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.96
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.94
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.85
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,520
<LOANS-PAST>                                     4,199
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 2,527
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                14,441
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    2,522
<RECOVERIES>                                     1,136
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               13,105
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            13,105
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          2,990


</TABLE>
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

February 24, 2014

N o. 04

- 12

- 00630

- CV

THE HUFF ENERGY FUND, L.P. , WRH Energy Partners, L.L.C., William R."Bill" Huff, Rick D'Angelo, Ed Dartley, Bryan Bloom, and Riley

- Huff Energy Group, LLC, Appellant s

v.

LONGVIEW ENERGY COMPANY,

Appellee

From the 365th Judicial District Court, Zavala County, Texas

Trial Court No. 11

- 09

- 12583

- ZCVAJA Honorable Amado J. Abascal, III, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellee's motion for extension of time to file brief is hereby GRANTED. The appellee's brief is due on or before April 9, 2014. NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS OF TIME WILL BE GRANTED.

_________________________________ Sandee Brya n Marion, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 24th day of February, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
**Exhibit 12.1****Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges**                       **Year Ended December 31,**   **2007**  **2006**  **2005**  **2004**  **2003**           **(in thousands)**         Fixed charges:                    Interest expense, including amortizationof debt issuance costs $4,068  $5,076  $3,613  $2,129  $295 Portion of rent expense representativeof interest  1,015   495   426   394   519                 Total fixed charges  5,083   5,571   4,039   2,523   814                                      Earnings (loss):                    Loss before provision for income taxes  (62,730)  (157,248)  (21,269)  (22,621)  (20,715)Fixed charges per above  5,083   5,571   4,039   2,523   814                                      Total loss before fixed charges  (57,648)  (151,677)  (17,230)  (20,098)  (19,901)                                     Deficiency of earnings available to coverfixed charges $(62,730) $(157,248) $(21,269) $(22,621) $(20,715)
* 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. 00-30593 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JASON BYNUM, also known as Jason James Bynum, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 97-CV-50066-1

-------------------- December 13, 2000 Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Jason Bynum appeals the revocation of his supervised release. He complains that the “Petition on Probation and Supervised Release” failed to “reference violation of any condition of his supervised release.” He also contends that the Government failed to prove its case, “[i]f limited to the evidence at the initial hearing, as it should be[.]” We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and find that the district court did not abuse its discretion inNo. 00-30593 -2- revoking supervised release. See United States v. McCormick , 54 F.3d 214, 219 (5th Cir. 1995); see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). The Petition on Probation and Supervised Release charged Bynum with threatening suicide and with “threaten[ing] bodily harm to an employee of the Creswell Hotel on November 24, 1999.” At the revocation hearing, the district court provided Bynum’s counsel with an opportunity to contest the charges, to present evidence on Bynum’s behalf, and to conduct cross-examination. Furthermore, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it allowed the Government to introduce additional evidence over Bynum’s objection. See United States v. Rodriguez , 43 F.3d 117, 125 (5 th Cir. 1995)(direct appeal). As the Government proved by a preponderance of the evidence that a condition of release had been violated, no abuse of discretion has been shown.

See McCormick , 54 F.3d at 219. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
DLA Disposition Services supports Kansas firefighters
 
  By Jeff Landenberger
  When Kansas firefighters respond to a call, many use equipment the state’s foresters acquired through the U.S. Forest Service and Defense Logistics Agency.
Equipping roughly 600 fire departments covering 81,760 square miles can be a challenge. Excess military equipment gathered by DLA Disposition Services helps when repurposed to support firefighting. Equipment can include anything from gear used to feed hungry firefighters in the field to cargo trucks converted into tankers that bring water to the fight. To secure items, the state forest service acts as a coordinator, making requests for desired items through the U.S. Forest Service, which looks to DLA for former military items.**A wildfire sweeps across the grasslands of Kansas. The state's forest service uses equipment from DLA Disposition Services.




A fire with tall flames burns grasslands and a few small trees.
        Kansas wildfire
            A wildfire sweeps across the grasslands of Kansas. The state's forest service uses equipment from DLA Disposition Services.

            SHARE IMAGE:

                Download Image
                    Image Details
                    
                    Photo By: Kansas Forest Service
                    
                    VIRIN: 200612-O-AA987-777**Eric Ward, an assistant fire management officer with the Kansas Forest Service, estimates that at least half of the state’s fire departments have equipment obtained either through the DOD Firefighter Property program via U.S. Forest Service, or through the older Federal Excess Personal Property program, which offers donation items from all federal agencies.
“We’ve been gradually replacing FEPP equipment with FFP items, as departments request replacements for their older FEPP trucks,” Ward said. “Since FFP is a higher screening priority, we get a bigger selection and better quality vehicles and equipment than if we wait for it to hit the FEPP screening cycle.”
Ward’s duties include overseeing preparedness, which includes acquiring equipment from the two programs. He said while there are no official records, it is thought that half of the state’s wildfires are responded to with former federal equipment.
“Most of the wildfires occur in rural areas, of course ... and typically the smaller, more rural departments are getting equipment through those programs because they have much more limited budgets than a big urban area,” Ward said.
“When we get trucks ... we check them out mechanically, make sure they’re safe and roadworthy, everything works, and such things as glass, mirrors, seats, seatbelts, etc., are all present and intact,” Ward said, adding that the state paints and equips trucks for firefighting.
No. 10M16.

#### Djamel Ameziane, Petitioner v. Barack H. Obama, President of the United States, et al.

562 U.S. 820, 131 S. Ct. 375,

178 L. Ed. 2d 11,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6381.

October 4, 2010.

Motion for leave to file a petition for writ of certiorari under seal granted.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.

Same case below, 393 U.S. App. D.C. 123, 620 F.3d 1.
|                                                                                                                      
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                      
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                              
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                                        
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                                                        
|View History:                                                                                                         
|                                                                                                                      
|Price of Cameron (Calcasieu Pass), LA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to All Countries (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                                      
|                                                                                                                      
|Price of Cameron (Calcasieu Pass), LA Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to All Countries (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                                      

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2020's                                                                                                                            |        |        | 26.27  | 16.03  |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
No. 09-1447.

#### Miller Auto Sales, Inc., Petitioner v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., et al.

562 U.S. 834, 131 S. Ct. 138,

178 L. Ed. 2d 35,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6564.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Virginia denied.

Same case below, 279 Va. 327, 689 S.E.2d 679.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Felipe Vargas-Ortiz, Appellant.

[769 NYS2d 735]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Rooney, J.), rendered September 19, 2000, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree (two counts), criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree (three counts), and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (three counts), after a jury trial, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress, inter alia, drugs found upon a search of a hotel room. It is well settled that issues of credibility are within the province of the hearing court, which had the opportunity to see and hear the witnesses, and its determination must be accorded great deference and should not be set aside unless clearly unsupported by the record *(see People v Prochilo,*41 NY2d 759 [1977]; *People v Rivera,*186 AD2d 692, 693 [1992]). Under the circumstances, we perceive no basis upon which to disturb the hearing court’s determination.

Although the defendant was acquitted of other charges, the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence. Inasmuch as there are facts which differentiated the counts, this Court should not speculate or second-guess the verdict *(see People v Rayam,*94 NY2d 557, 561, 563 [2000]; *People v Goodfriend,*64 NY2d 695, 697 [1984]; *People v Riddick,*307 AD2d 821 [2003]).

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that his sentence constituted cruel and unusual *887punishment, since he did not raise such claim before the sentencing court *(see People v Ingram,*67 NY2d 897 [1986]; *People v Buffa,*139 AD2d 751 [1988]). In any event, considering the gravity of the defendant’s crimes, the harm such crimes causes society, and the sheer amounts of cocaine he sold on three separate occasions, the imposition of an aggregate term of imprisonment of 18 years to life cannot be deemed cruel and unusual punishment *(see People v Thompson,*83 NY2d 477, 485 [1994]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80, 83 [1982]). Santucci, J.P., Krausman, Schmidt and Rivera, JJ., concur.
No. 09-1536.

#### Gerald Molnar, Petitioner v. Care House, et al.

562 U.S. 839, 131 S. Ct. 188,

178 L. Ed. 2d 43,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5802.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 359 Fed. Appx. 623.
160 A.3d 698

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. ANTHONY MASSENBURG, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

February 13, 2017

ON PETITION FOR CERTIFICATION

To the Appellate Division, Superior Court:

A petition for certification of the judgment in [ A-XXXXXX-XX ] having been submitted to this Court, and the Court having considered the same;

It is ORDERED that the petition for certification is denied.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 107 (Thursday, June 4, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30472-30473]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-14859]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS


Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the South Carolina 
Advisory Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, that a meeting of 
the South

[[Page 30473]]

Carolina Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 2:00 p.m. 
and adjourn at 5:00 p.m. June 25, 1998, at the Adams Mark Hotel, 1200 
Hampton Street, Columbia, South Carolina 29201. The purpose of the 
meeting is to finalize plans for the Education in South Carolina 
project.
    Persons desiring additional information, or planning a presentation 
to the Committee, should contact Bobby D. Doctor, Director of the 
Southern Regional Office, 404-562-7000 (TDD 404-562-7004). Hearing-
impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require the services 
of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at 
least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission.

    Dated at Washington, DC, May 27, 1998.
Carol-Lee Hurley,
Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. 98-14859 Filed 6-3-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
#### Com. v. Scott

12/01/2015

502 EAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 125 A.3d 464
(logo)KNUTSON
MORTGAGE CORPORATION



As of and for the year ended September 30, 1996,  Knutson  Mortgage  Corporation
has  complied  with the minimum  servicing  standards  set forth in the Mortgage
Bankers  Association  of  Americas  UNIFORM  SINGLE  ATTESTATION  PROGRAM  FOR
MORTGAGE BANKERS. As of and for this same period,  Knutson Mortgage  Corporation
had in effect a fidelity bond and errors and  omissions  policy in the amount of
$9,000,000.


/s/Douglas M. Winn
Douglas M. Winn
Senior Vice President
Chief Financial Officer



December 30, 1996
Date



  3001 METRO DRIVE / SUITE 400 / MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55425 / (612) 204-2600
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ramon Sanchez, Appellant.

[63 NYS3d 238]—

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Troy K. Webber, J.), rendered May 5, 2015, unanimously affirmed.

Although we find that defendant did not make a valid waiver of the right to appeal, we perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

Concur—Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Andrias, Gische, Kern and Singh, JJ.
No. 09-1499.

#### Feesers, Inc., Petitioner v. Michael Foods, Inc., et al.

562 U.S. 837, 131 S. Ct. 160,

178 L. Ed. 2d 39,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 5787.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.

*40Same case below, 591 F.3d 191.
No. 12-7984.

#### Missouri *v.*Birkett, Warden.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 179 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 179

       To tax 9 millimeter, .25 caliber, and .32 caliber bullets.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             January 21 (legislative day, January 5), 1993

 Mr. Moynihan introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
       To tax 9 millimeter, .25 caliber, and .32 caliber bullets.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
That this Act may be cited as the ``Real Cost of Ammunition Act.''

SEC. 101. INCREASE IN TAX ON CERTAIN BULLETS.

    (a) In General.--Section 4181 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
(relating to the imposition of tax on firearms, etc.) is amended by 
adding at the end the following new flush sentence:
``In the case of 9 millimeter, .25 caliber, or .32 caliber ammunition, 
the rate of tax under this section shall be 1,000 percent.''.
    (b) Exemption for Law Enforcement Purposes.--Section 4182 of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to exemptions) is amended by 
adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(d) Law Enforcement.--The last sentence of section 4181 shall not 
apply to any sale (not otherwise exempted) to, or for the use of, the 
United States (or any department, agency, or instrumentality thereof) 
or a State or political subdivision thereof (or any department, agency, 
or instrumentality thereof).''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to sales after December 31, 1995.

                                 <all>
```
#### In the Matter of Kaylee W., a Child Alleged to be Neglected. Erie County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Rebecca S., Appellant, et al., Respondent.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[51 NYS3d 919]

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Sharon M. Lo Vallo, J.), entered March 6, 2015. The order, among other things, continued the placement of the subject child.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Same memorandum as in *Matter of Emily*W. *(Michael*S.—*Rebecca S.)*([appeal No. 1] 150 AD3d 1707 [2017]).

Present— Centra, J.P., Carni, NeMoyer, Curran and Troutman, JJ.
#### The Dweck Law Firm, LLP, Respondent, v Cynthia A. Mann, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

[767 NYS2d 771]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tomp*189kins, J.), entered October 18, 2002, striking defendant Mann’s answer and declaring plaintiff to have performed its contractual obligations to its client, thereby entitling it to a lien against the first $1,035,000 recovered by said defendant from her former employer, defendant First Union National Bank, plus out-of-pocket expenses, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly exercised its discretion in striking the answer and affixing the lien based on defendant Mann’s willful failure to comply with numerous disclosure orders (CPLR 3126; *Emanuel v Broadway Mall Props.,*293 AD2d 708 [2002]; *Ortiz v Weaver,*188 AD2d 290 [1992]). Concur—Rosenberger, J.P., Lerner, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1

MTS SYSTEMS CORPORATION 
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 
PURSUANT TO 
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

The
undersigned, Laura B. Hamilton, the Chief Executive Officer of MTS Systems
Corporation (the Company), has executed this Certification in connection with
the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Companys
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 27, 2009 (the
Report).

The
undersigned hereby certifies 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 SEC or its
staff upon request.

|                      |                                   
|--------------------- | ----------------------------------
|Date: August
 3, 2009 |                                   
|                      |                                   
|                      | /s/ LAURA B.
 HAMILTON            
|                      | Laura B.
 Hamilton                
|                      | Chair and
 Chief Executive Officer

---