alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.1 Certification of Principal Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)   I, Kip Eardley, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer, of Piranha Ventures, Inc. (the "Registrant") do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period December 31, 2010 of the Registrant, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"):  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.  Dated:  March 25, 2011 By: /s/ Kip Eardley  Kip Eardley  Chief Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer  * A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Piranha Ventures, Inc. and will be retained by Piranha Ventures, Inc. and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1285 

KA 13-01732 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V ORDER

ERIC A. EASTON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (NICHOLAS P. DIFONZO OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

LAWRENCE FRIEDMAN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BATAVIA (WILLIAM G. ZICKL OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Genesee County Court (Robert C.

Noonan, J.), rendered April 8, 2013. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of reckless endangerment in the

first degree (three counts). 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Entered: January 2, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rashid Khan, Appellant.

[767 NYS2d 823]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Eng, J.), rendered November 28, 2000, convicting him of conspiracy in the second degree (two counts), criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in replacing a sworn juror who had been struck by a car and reported to the court’s law secretary that she was medically unable to continue her jury service. Upon learning of the juror’s accident, the court initially adjourned the case for a day. However, the next day, after another telephone conversation with the court’s law secretary confirmed that the juror would be unable to serve, the court replaced her with an alternate juror without any objection from the defense counsel. Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the court did not improperly delegate its obligation to make *“a*reasonably thorough inquiry” regarding the juror’s unavailability (CPL 270.35 [2] [a]; *see People v Jeanty,*94 NY2d 507 [2000]; *People v Bruno,*295 AD2d 228 [2002]; *People v Ortiz,*286 AD2d 781 [2001]).

The contention in the defendant’s supplemental pro se brief that the court erroneously admitted a tape recorded conversation between him and a deceased confidential informant into evidence is without merit *(cf. People v Ely,*68 NY2d 520, 527-528 [1986]; *see People v Rawlins,*105 AD2d 552 [1984]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, either are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Altman, J.P., Florio, Luciano and Rivera, JJ., concur.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED APRIL 12, 2017

NO. 03-15-00696-CR

Justin Michael Johnson, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 147TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, PEMBERTON, AND GOODWIN

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE PURYEAR

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction rendered by the trial court. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the 

trial court’s judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of conviction.

Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
#### People v Hill (Jacqueline)

App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists: 51 Misc 3d 134(A) (Nassau)

denied 8/16/16 (Garcia, J.)
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 136 (Wednesday, July 16, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 41623]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16628]

[[Page 41623]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8794]

In the Matter of the Designation of Anders Cameroon Ostensvig 
Dale Also Known as Muslim Abu Abdurrahman; Also Known as Abu 
Abdurrahman the Norwegian; Also Known as Abu Abdurrahman the Moroccan; 
as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist Pursuant to Section 1(b) of 
Executive Order 13224, as Amended

    Acting under the authority of and in accordance with section 1(b) 
of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, as amended by Executive 
Order 13268 of July 2, 2002, and Executive Order 13284 of January 23, 
2003, I hereby determine that the individual known as Anders Cameroon 
Ostensvig Dale, also known as Muslim Abu Abdurrahman, also known as Abu 
Abdurrahman the Norwegian, also known as Abu Abdurrahman the Moroccan, 
committed, or poses a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism 
that threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security, 
foreign policy, or economy of the United States.
    Consistent with the determination in section 10 of Executive Order 
13224 that ``prior notice to persons determined to be subject to the 
Order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States 
would render ineffectual the blocking and other measures authorized in 
the Order because of the ability to transfer funds instantaneously,'' I 
determine that no prior notice needs to be provided to any person 
subject to this determination who might have a constitutional presence 
in the United States, because to do so would render ineffectual the 
measures authorized in the Order.
    This notice shall be published in the Federal Register.

    Dated: June 16, 2014.
John F. Kerry,
Secretary of State.
[FR Doc. 2014-16628 Filed 7-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
```
No. 10-5656.

#### Kende Moses, Petitioner v. Florida.

562 U.S. 933, 131 S. Ct. 333,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7381.

178 L. Ed. 2d 216,

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District, denied.

Same case below, 34 So. 3d 12.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20

- 0312
LARRY REINLASODER, Appellant and Plaintiff ,

vs. CITY OF COLSTRIP , Mayor J ohn Williams, STATE OF MONTANA , Judi cial Branch, Court Administrator, Does I - V. Appellee s and Defe nd ants

.
GRANT OF EXTENSION

U pon consideration of Appellant ’ s motio n for a 30

- day extension of time, and good c ause appearing therefor , Appel lant is granted an extension of time to and including October 17, 2020 , w ithin w hich to prepare, serve, and file h is Ope ning Brief.
Dated this
_____ day of September , 20 20

.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 15 2020

09/15/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0312
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000064892
<NAME> FDS
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           16006
<SECURITIES>                                     46327
<RECEIVABLES>                                    37890
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      37383
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                152133
<PP&E>                                           34267
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  219257
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            37192
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          2345
<OTHER-SE>                                      176526
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    219257
<SALES>                                         127134
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                127134
<CGS>                                            48208
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   108770
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (86)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  21349
<INCOME-TAX>                                      6993
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              14356
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     14356
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .60
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .59


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,915
<ALLOWANCES>                                       985
<INVENTORY>                                     12,902
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                42,180
<PP&E>                                          35,162
<DEPRECIATION>                                  19,347
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  88,926
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           25,978
<BONDS>                                        175,050
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                   (113,682)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    88,926
<SALES>                                         76,120
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                76,120
<CGS>                                           47,050
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   47,050
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,761
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,825
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,484
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,410
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,074
<DISCONTINUED>                                (18,484)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (15,410)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
2016-1568.

#### Eckert v. Summit Cty. Pub. Health.

Summit App. No. 27844, 2016-Ohio-7076. On appellant’s application for dismissal. Application granted. Cause dismissed.
AAM-13-338-E

May 07, 2013

 Exemption No. 10354A

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-0938

Mr. Kurt Gross

Wings Air Charter, LLC

236 Airport Hangar Drive

Wisconsin Rapids, WI 54494

Dear Mr. Gross:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption 

No. 10354. It explains the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists the conditions 

and limitations.

The Basis for Our Decision

By submission received April 4, 2013, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) on behalf of Wings Air Charter, LLC (WAC) for an exemption from part 120 of Title 

14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), to allow WAC, which is operating under separate

parts of 14 CFR, to cover its safety-sensitive employee under one testing program.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to WAC.

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 10354 

remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the 

authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has 

delegated to me, I grant your petition, subject to the following conditions and limitations.
2

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Employees of WAC are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times 

while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of 

the WAC part 135 operation, not under part 91.

This exemption terminates on September 30, 2015 unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

James R. Fraser, M.D.

Deputy General Air Surgeon
II

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2159

To amend title 46, United States Code, to prevent certain masters and

seamen from being taxed on wages by more than one State or political

subdivision thereof, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 7, 1994

Mrs. MURRAY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend title 46, United States Code, to prevent certain

masters and seamen from being taxed on wages by more

than one State or political subdivision thereof, and for

other purposes.

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 ‘‘Transportation Em5 ployee Equitable Treatment Act of 1994’’.
2

•S 2159 IS

1 SEC. 2. EQUITABLE TREATMENT FOR INDIVIDUALS EM2 PLOYED ON VESSELS WITH RESPECT TO

3 STATE AND LOCAL TAXES.

4 Section 11108 of title 46, United States Code, is

5 amended—

6 (1) by inserting ‘‘(a)’’ before the first sentence;

7 (2) in subsection (a) (as designated by para8 graph (1))—

9 (A) by inserting ‘‘or other income’’ after

10 ‘‘Wages’’;

11 (B) by striking ‘‘noncontiguous trade or’’

12 and inserting ‘‘noncontiguous trade, to’’; and

13 (C) by inserting after ‘‘fish processing ves14 sel’’ the following: ‘‘, or to a pilot licensed

15 under section 7101 or licensed or authorized

16 under the laws of a State and engaged on a

17 vessel’’; and

18 (3) by adding at the end the following new sub19 section:

20 ‘‘(b) An individual who regularly performs services in

21 more than one State on a vessel as a master or seaman

22 or as a pilot licensed under section 7101 or licensed or

23 authorized under the laws of a State, may not be subject

24 to the laws of any State or political subdivision of a State

25 (other than the State and political subdivision of the State

26 in which the individual resides) that impose a tax or fee
3

•S 2159 IS

1 on the privilege of performing such services or on gross

2 receipts or income received for such services.’’.

Æ
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ralph Ben Cotto, Appellant.

[66 NYS3d 134]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, J.), rendered February 2, 2016, convicting defendant, upon his pleas of guilty, of two counts of operating as a major trafficker, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 12V2 years, unanimously affirmed. Purported appeal from orders, same court and Justice, entered on or about September 28, 2015, to the extent they denied in part defendant’s omnibus motions, unanimously dismissed, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

Defendant’s challenge to the validity of his guilty plea is unpreserved *(see People v Conceicao,*26 NY3d 375, 381 [2015]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily pleaded guilty, after fully waiving his rights under *Boykin v Alabama*(395 US 238 [1969]).

To the extent the limited record permits review, it establishes the geographic jurisdiction of New York State and County *(see People v Carvajal,*6 NY3d 305 [2005]; *People v Kassebaum,*264 AD2d 664, 666 [1st Dept 1999], *affd*95 NY2d 611 [2001], *cert denied*532 US 1069 [2001]).

Defendant’s guilty plea forecloses appellate review of the legal sufficiency of the evidence presented to the grand jury *442
      *(see People v Kazmarick,*52 NY2d 322, 326 [1981]).

Concur— Renwick, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Gische, Kahn and Singh, JJ.
## NO. 12

- 10

- 00 395

- C R

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

IN RE: §

RICHARD RANDLE, § ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

RELATOR §

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Relator Richard Randle f iled a petition for writ of mandamus seeking an order directing

the trial court to rule on his “Motion for Reformation of Sentence.” We have received

documentation showing that, on December 14, 2010, the trial court ruled on Relator’s motion.

Accordingly , his petition for writ of mandamus is now moot and is dismissed

.

Opinion delivered December 22 , 2010.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 109 (Monday, June 8, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 31209]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15097]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP98-233-000]


Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff

June 2, 1998.
    Take notice that on May 29, 1998, Northern Natural Gas Company 
(Northern), tendered for filing changes in its FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth 
Revised Volume No. 1.
    Northern states that the filing revises the current Stranded 
Account No. 858 Surcharge which is designed to recover costs incurred 
by Northern related to its contracts with third-party pipelines. 
Therefore, Northern has filed 1 Revised Substitute 43 Sheet Nos. 50 and 
51 and the 1 Revised Substitute 40 Revised Sheet No. 53 to be effective 
July 1, 1998.
    Northern states that copies of this filing were served upon the 
Company's customers and interested state commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a 
motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-15097 Filed 6-5-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
# DLA Distribution Commanding General's U.S.  Army Birthday Message - June 2022

/ Published June 14, 2022
NEW CUMBERLAND, Pa., 
Teammates,

The Army celebrates their 247th birthday on Tuesday, June 14th, marking their incredible history as one of America’s first national institutions. I would like to wish all of our current and former Soldiers a very Happy 247th Army Birthday! 

The Department of the Army has declared this year's Army Birthday theme as, “Defending America 24/7.”                 .

On June 14, 1775, the Continental Congress formed the United States Army and just a few days later, George Washington humbly accepted a commission as its Commanding General. The men who served under General Washington took on an 8-year struggle against Great Britain, ending with the Army’s first victory and the catalyst for America’s independence. 

Since then, Army soldiers have defended the nation from threats around the world, selflessly supporting the nation and the U.S. Constitution. The Army also defends America by defending our allies, including sending troops to Europe in support of our NATO allies in response to the invasion of Ukraine. 

Embodying the Army values of loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity and personal courage, soldiers selflessly put their lives on the line every day. Today, we celebrate the courage of Army soldiers who stand behind their oath to defend the American way of life 24/7, a part of their legacy. 

I, along with COL (Retired) Perry Knight, USA, would like to thank each and every one of you for your continued support to our warfighters as they continue to answer the nation’s call.    

Happy Birthday Army!   HOOAH!  

V/R,MajGen Keith D. Reventlow, USMCCommanding GeneralDLA Distribution
EXHIBIT 11

                              MODERN CONTROLS, INC.

                   COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER COMMON SHARE


                                      Three Months Ended
                                          March 31,
                                  --------------------------
                                     1998            1997
                                  ----------      ----------

BASIC


Average shares outstanding         6,444,698       6,412,084
                                  ==========      ==========


Net income                        $  499,570      $  960,257
                                  ==========      ==========


Basic per share amounts           $     0.08      $     0.15
                                  ==========      ==========




DILUTED


Average shares outstanding         6,444,698       6,412,084

Net effect of dilutive stock
options - based on the
treasury stock method                 75,955          40,163
                                  ----------      ----------

Total                              6,520,653       6,452,247
                                  ==========      ==========


Net income                        $  499,570      $  960,257
                                  ==========      ==========


Diluted per share amounts         $     0.08      $     0.15
                                  ==========      ==========