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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           2,107
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   21,238
<ALLOWANCES>                                       689
<INVENTORY>                                     69,599
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         345,167
<DEPRECIATION>                                  65,024
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 386,812
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        167,251
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     122,645
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   386,812
<SALES>                                         26,147
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                36,001
<CGS>                                           13,310
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   20,997
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,451
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,553
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,553
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,553
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.30
        

</TABLE>
Henry APFELBACH, Appellant, v. SOUTH WALTON FIRE DISTRICT/PREFERRED GOVERNMENT CLAIMS SOLUTIONS/PGCS, Appellees.

CASE NO. 1D17-2152

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Opinion filed November 6, 2017.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Juan Pablo ANDRADE-MENDEZ, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 03-10446.

D.C. No. CR-02-00281-PMP.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 10, 2004.*

Decided May 18, 2004.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada; Philip M. Pro, District Judge, Presiding.

Pamela A. Martin, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Juan Pablo Andrade-Mendez, North Las Vegas, NV, pro se.

Robert M. Draskovich, Robert M. Draskovieh, Chtd., Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before CANBY, KOZINSKI and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM**

Juan Pablo Andrade-Mendez appeals his guilty-plea conviction and 46-month sentence for distribution of a controlled *183substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(l)(A)(viii) and (B)(viii).

Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel for Andrade-Mendez has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, and a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. No supplemental pro se brief was filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no grounds for relief. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED and the appeal is AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Rolf SIEGMUND, Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Appellee.

Case No. 2D15-5301

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed November 8, 2017.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Stuart LONG, Appellant, v. Richard WOLLAM and Juana Belen, Appellees.

Case No. 2D16-5615

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed December 15, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# CE2004084EN.01047802.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/478 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/478

---

(2004/C 84 E/0554)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1857/03

by Brian Simpson (PSE) to the Commission

(3 June 2003)

Subject:   Protecting slots for regional air routes

Subject:

Could the Commission clarify the position in regard to how regional air routes can have their slots protected under the current air slot regulations?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(7 July 2003)

(7 July 2003)

Community law provides for the protection of regional services in two ways. Firstly, the Community rules on market access (Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes (1), Article 4) provide for governments to be able to impose the so-called public service obligations on routes within the Community in the periphery and the regions, for which air transport is vital for their development. For routes where a public obligation has been imposed and which are domestic, the Community rules on slot allocation (Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 of 18 January 1993 on common rules for the allocation of slots at Community airports (2)) provide that Member States may reserve slots at fully coordinated airports (Article 9 § 1 (b) of the Regulation). For non-domestic routes, where a public service obligation has been imposed, there is no possibility to reserve slots. Secondly, for routes, which do not benefit from a public service obligation but connect regional airports on the territory of a Member State with a fully coordinated airport, the rules on slot allocation (Article 9 § 1 (a) and § 3 of the Regulation) give Member States the right to reserve slots only under certain conditions. Accordingly, slots for such routes could be reserved, only if the routes in question were operated in 1993, when the slot Regulation entered into force, and if the Member State concerned had communicated the list of the routes benefiting from this regime.

1

2

---

(1)  OJ L 240, 24.8.1992.

1

(2)  OJ L 14, 22.1.1993.

2

---
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Masakazu Kurushima, in my capacity as the President and Chief Executive Officer of California Steel Industries, Inc., for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certify that:

the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ending September 30, 2006, filed by California Steel Industries, Inc., on October 27, 2006 complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and the information
contained in such quarterly report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of California Steel Industries, Inc.

Dated: October 27, 2006



By:

/s/ MASAKAZU KURUSHIMAMasakazu KurushimaPresident and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 31.2  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Hugh N. Coltharp certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Registrant; 2. Based on my knowledge, this Report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this Report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this Annual Report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this Report; 4. The Registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the Registrant and we have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this Report is being prepared; b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this Report (the "Evaluation Date"); and c) presented in this Report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date; 5. The Registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the Registrant's auditors and the audit committee of Registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the Registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the Registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrant's internal controls; and 6. The Registrant's other certifying officer and I have indicated in this Annual Report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses. Dated:  March 21, 2007 /s/ Hugh N. Coltharp Hugh N. Coltharp Secretary/Treasurer and director
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS, STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
AND STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-28-1999
<CASH>                                         249,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,536,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 18,905,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            26,809,000
<PP&E>                                      17,393,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               8,919,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              39,691,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,216,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        68,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  17,755,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                39,691,000
<SALES>                                      7,381,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,381,000
<CGS>                                        5,837,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,369,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             306,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (294,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (294,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (294,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.05)
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

IN THE MATTER OF:

C.B.,

DA 20-0253

A Youth in Need of Care.

2",IN 0 1 2721

.,• • .r,..o.pz,(jd

Clefk C :E.;lipf - -eme. Court

Slate of montana

ORDER

Counsel for Appellant S.B. has filed a petition for rehearing in the captioned matter.

Counsel for Appellee State of Montana has responded objecting to the petition.

This Court will consider a petition for rehearing presented only upon the following

grounds:

(i) That it overlooked some fact material to the decision;

(ii) That it overlooked some question presented by counsel that would have

proven decisive to the case; or

(iii) That its decision conflicts with a statute or controlling decision not addressed

by the supreme court.

M. R. App. P. 20(1)(a).

This case was decided by unpublished opinion, pursuant to the Internal Operating

Rules of this Court. Unpublished opinions are per se unanimous and summary actions by

this Court affirming a result in district court. They do not necessarily contain a detailed

analysis of all the issues raised on appeal; however, that does not mean that the Court

overlooked a particular argument or issue raised by a party.

The Court having duly considered the petition and the response,

IT IS ORDERED that the petition for rehearing is denied.

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to all counsel of record.

DATED this 1 day of June, 2021.

Chief Justice

06/01/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0253
)-.1f fit All,.

Justices

2
Julius J. HALYARD, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2560

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed December 20, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### PRINEVILLE SAWMILL COMPANY, an Oregon corporation, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. LONGVIEW FIBRE COMPANY, a Washington corporation, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 03-35214.

D.C. No. CV-01-01073-AJB.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted May 4, 2004.

Decided May 11, 2004.

Silverman, Circuit Judge, dissented and filed opinion.

Gregory P. Lynch, Stanley D. Austin, Hurley Lynch *&*Re, PC, Bend, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Thomas W. Sondag, Charles J. Pruitt, George L. Kirklin, Lane Powell Spears Lubersky, LLP, Portland, OR, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before REINHARDT, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Prineville Sawmill Co. appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Longview Fibre Co. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here except as necessary. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse and remand.

Viewing the 1999 settlement agreement in context, we conclude that Prineville had a reasonable expectation, based on the past performance of the parties, that *134Longview would not strictly enforce the $ % bark content provision. In entering the 1999 settlement agreement, Prineville reasonably expected that Longview would not depart from its past practices and would accept chips similar to those accepted in the past. Fact questions sufficient to preclude summary judgment exist as to whether Longview was equitably estopped from adopting a new policy of strict enforcement of the /&% bark content provision, and as to Prineville’s assertion that Longview’s actions were part of a systematic and deliberate attempt to prevent Prineville from fully performing under the 1999 agreement — especially in light of the fact that the agreement was entered into as a result of Prineville’s voluntarily dismissing its 1998 lawsuit with prejudice and Longview’s agreeing to purchase chips from Prineville at an artificially inflated price. We therefore reverse the grant of summary judgment on the question of whether Longview breached the chip purchase agreement and remand for a trial on this issue.

We also reverse the grant of summary judgment on the question of whether Longview breached the option purchase agreement. The district court found that Prineville had failed to comply with the requirements of the agreement. However, while Prineville may not have technically fulfilled all of its obligations, we cannot say that this failure constituted a material breach of the agreement. We therefore also reverse the grant of summary judgment for Longview on the option purchase agreement and remand for this issue to proceed to trial.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

SILVERMAN, Circuit Judge,

dissenting.

For the reasons ably set forth by the district judge, I would affirm.
STATE of Louisiana v. John Lee BASS

NO. 2018-KH-0296

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 16, 2018

Writ not considered. Untimely filed pursuant to Louisiana Supreme Court Rule X § 5.
----

**EXHIBIT        32.0**

**SECTION        906 CERTIFICATIONS**

|   | (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:  December                  21, 2007 | /s/                  Thomas A. Vento                   |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                | Thomas                  A. Vento                       |   |
|                                                | President                  and Chief Executive Officer |   |
|                                                |                                                   |   |
|                                                |                                                   |   |
|                                                |                                                   |   |
| Date:  December                  21, 2007 | /s/                  Joseph R. Corrato                 |   |
|                                                | Joseph                  R. Corrato                     |   |
|                                                | Executive                  Vice President,             |   |
|                                                | Chief                  Financial Officer and           |   |
|                                                | Chief                  Accounting Officer              |   |

*A        signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the        Sarbanes–Oxley Act has been provided to Prudential Bancorp, Inc. of Pennsylvania        and will be retained by Prudential Bancorp, Inc. of Pennsylvania and furnished        to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon        request.*
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Susan K. Still certify that:

 

|   | 1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of HOMETOWN BANKSHARES CORPORATION.                                                                                                                                                                                                        |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |
|   | 2.   Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report. |

 

| Date: March 29, 2019 | /s/ Susan K. Still                    |
|----------------------|---------------------------------------|
|                 |                                  |
|                 | Susan K. Still                        |
|                 |                                  |
|                 | President and Chief Executive Officer |