alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Corn Host Plant Resistance Research: Mississippi State, MS
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                                    Software
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




Honey bees collecting pollen from a corn tassel.   (photo by Boo Matthews).


Mission


People Babiker, Ebrahiem Hames, Alan Hawkins, Leigh Jeffers, Dan Jordan, Robin Matthews, Gerald
                                            *- Boo* Owens, Ladonna Tranum, Patrick Woolfolk, Sandra


Southeast Area   ebrahiem.babiker@usda.gov


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
[Nos. 15077-1-III; 15166-2-III.

Division Three.

August 26, 1997.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. James A. Anderson, *Appellant. In the Matter of the Personal Restraint of*James A. Anderson, *Petitioner.*

Appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court for Spokane County, No. 94-1-02117-7, Marcus M. Kelly, J., entered July 19, 1995, together with a petition for relief from personal restraint. Judgment *affirmed*and petition *denied*by unpublished opinion per Schultheis, A.C.J., concurred in by Thompson and Brown, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1



Certification of CEO and CFO 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-Q of US Airways, Inc. (the Company) for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Bruce R. Lakefield, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Ronald E. Stanley, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, 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 his knowledge:



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



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



|                       |  |                        
|---------------------- |  | -----------------------
|/s/ Bruce R. Lakefield
|Name:                  |  | Bruce R. Lakefield     
|Title:                 |  | Chief Executive Officer
|Date:                  |  | May 3, 2005            
|                      
|/s/ Ronald E. Stanley 
|Name:                  |  | Ronald E. Stanley      
|Title:                 |  | Chief Financial Officer
|Date:                  |  | May 3, 2005            



This certification accompanies the
Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.
** **

**Exhibit 11**

** **

**CREATIVE COMPUTER APPLICATIONS, INC.**

 

##### **COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE**

 

 
| ** **                                                   | ** ** | **Nine  Months Ended  May 31,** | ** ** | **Three  Months Ended  May 31,** | ** ** |
|--------------------------------------------------------------|------------|---------------------------------|------------|----------------------------------|------------|
|                                                         |       | **2002**                        |       | **2001**                         |       | **2002** |   | **2001** |   |
| AVERAGE MARKET PRICE PER SHARE                               |       | $                               | 0.86       |                             | $          | 0.57 |   | $ | 1.12 |   | $ | 0.45 |   |
|                                                         |       |                            |       |                             |       |   |   |   |   |
| NET INCOME (LOSS)                                            |       | $                               | 207,020    |                             | $          | (718,727 | ) | $ | 118,369 |   | $ | 33,225 |   |
|                                                         |       |                            |       |                             |       |   |   |   |   |
| Basic weighted average number of common shares outstanding   |       | 3,235,622                       |       | 3,177,492                        |       | 3,251,483 |   | 3,185,325 |   |
|                                                         |       |                            |       |                             |       |   |   |   |   |
| Diluted effect of stock options                              |       | 9,486                           |       | —                           |       | 116,583 |   | — |   |
|                                                         |       |                            |       |                             |       |   |   |   |   |
| Diluted weighted average number of common shares outstanding |       | 3,245,108                       |       | 3,177,492                        |       | 3,368,066 |   | 3,185,325 |   |
|                                                         |       |                            |       |                             |       |   |   |   |   |
| Basic earnings (loss) per share                              |       | $                               | .06        |                             | $          | (.23 | ) | $ | .04 |   | $ | .01 |   |
|                                                         |       |                            |       |                             |       |   |   |   |   |
| Diluted earnings (loss) per share                            |       | $                               | .06        |                             | $          | (.23 | ) | $ | .04 |   | $ | .01 |   |

 

 

----
#### Victor A. MOTLEY, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. VIRGINIA STATE BAR; Supreme Court of Virginia, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 05-2265.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 7, 2006.

Decided: April 25, 2006.

Victor A. Motley, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Robert Messitt, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Victor A. Motley appeals the district court’s order dismissing this action under *192the *Rooker-Feldman*doctrine.* We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Motley v. Virginia State Bar,*403 F.Supp.2d 468 (E.D.Va.2005). We also deny Motley’s motion to recuse. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*

*

*See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462,*103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983); *Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.,*263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923).
Exhibit
32.2





SIGNATURE
EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION CORP.


CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350





The undersigned, Steven Weldon, in his
capacities as Chief Financial Officer and Director, of Signature Exploration and
Production Corp. do each hereby certify that the Form 10-K of Signature
Exploration and Production Corp. for the year ended March 31, 2009 fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that the information
contained in such Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Signature Exploration and
Production Corp.





This certification is given by the
undersigned solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. 1350 and is subject to the
knowledge standard contained therein.





Executed this 2nd day of December,
2009.





/s/    Steven
      WeldonSteven
      WeldonChief
      Financial Officer and
Director
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Enrique GOMEZ-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-11082

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 10, 2011.

Nancy E. Larson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Shawn Lee Smith, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Kevin Joel Page, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Enrique Gomez-Garcia (Gomez) appeals the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry after deportation. Gomez argues that the district court’s upward departure from the advisory guidelines range of 24-30 months of imprisonment based on the inadequacy of his criminal history category was substantively unreasonable.

We review Gomez’s sentence for reasonableness in light of the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). *United States v. Mares,*402 F.3d 511, 519-20 (5th Cir. 2005). Reasonableness review, in the context of a guidelines departure, requires this court to evaluate both the decision to depart upward and the extent of the departure for an abuse of discretion. *United States v. Zuniga-Peralta,*442 F.3d 345, 347 (5th Cir.2006). An upward departure is not an abuse of discretion if the reasons for the departure advance the objectives of § 3553(a) and are justified by the particular facts of the case. *Id.*

Given Gomez’s extensive criminal record and the lack of deterrent effect from prior sentences, as shown by the expediency with which he has returned to this country illegally and committed other offenses, the district court did not abuse its discretion by upwardly departing based on its finding that Gomez’s criminal history category underrepresented the seriousness of his criminal history and the likelihood that he would recidivate. See § 3553(a); *Zuniga-Peralta,*442 F.3d at 347-48. Gomez’s assertions that the departure was unwarranted in light of the fact that he was already in the highest criminal history category and because the Northern District of Texas has a higher upward departure rate in illegal reentry cases than the national average are unavailing. *See*U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3, p.s.; *United States v. Willingham,*497 F.3d 541, 544 (5th Cir. 2007). Additionally, Gomez has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in determining the extent of the departure. *See United States v. Brantley,*537 F.3d 347, 349-50 (5th Cir.2008); *Zuniga-Peralta,*442 F.3d at 347-48; *United States v. Smith,*417 F.3d 483, 492-93 (5th Cir.2005).

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2212 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Trinexapac-Ethyl. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 10, 2005 

Mr. COBLE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on TrinexapacEthyl. 

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

3 SECTION 1. TRINEXAPAC-ETHYL. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.29.93 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 Trinexapac-ethyl) is amended by striking ‘‘12/31/2003’’ 

7 and inserting ‘‘12/31/2008’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 
2 

•HR 2212 IH 

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
Juan VENTURA-VERA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-7218.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

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

Justice KAGAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. City of New York et al., Respondents, v Globe Affiliates, Inc., et al., Appellants.

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ethel Danzig, J.), entered on October 28, 1983, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. The appeal from the judgment of said court entered on August 11, 1983 is dismissed as having been superseded by the appeal from the judgment entered on October 28, 1983, without costs and without disbursements. No Concur — Sandler, J. P., Asch, Fein and Milonas, JJ.
#### NEUBERTH v. NEUBERTH (two cases).

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

April 12, 1912.)

Action by Sarah E. Neuberth against Adam Neuberth. Wm. H. Zehr, appellant. No opinion. Motions granted to extent indicated in memorandum. Memorandum per curiam. Settle order on notice.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2183 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

567 Tompkins Avenue in Staten Island, New York, as the ‘‘Vincent 

Palladino Post Office’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 5, 2005 

Mr. FOSSELLA (for himself, Mrs. MCCARTHY, Mr. KING of New York, Mr. 

MEEKS of New York, Mr. TOWNS, Mr. ENGEL, Mr. REYNOLDS, Mr. 

CROWLEY, Mr. ACKERMAN, Mr. BISHOP of New York, Mr. HIGGINS, Ms. 

SLAUGHTER, Mr. KUHL of New York, Mr. BOEHLERT, Mrs. LOWEY, Mr. 

MCNULTY, Mr. RANGEL, Mr. SERRANO, Mr. MCHUGH, Mr. WALSH, Mr. 

WEINER, Mrs. MALONEY, Mr. OWENS, Mr. ISRAEL, Mr. NADLER, Mrs. 

KELLY, Mr. HINCHEY, Mr. SWEENEY, and Ms. VELA ́ZQUEZ) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Government 

Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 567 Tompkins Avenue in Staten Island, New 

York, as the ‘‘Vincent Palladino Post Office’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. VINCENT PALLADINO POST OFFICE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 567 Tompkins Avenue in Staten 
2 

•HR 2183 IH 

1 Island, New York, shall be known and designated as the 

2 ‘‘Vincent Palladino Post Office’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

6 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Vincent Palladino 

7 Post Office’’. 

Æ
---

CONSENT OF AUTHOR

C. Mark Rebagliati, P.Eng
  2503-588 BROUGHTON STREET
  VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA 
  Telephone: 604-662-7487 Fax: 604-662-7475
  markr@hdgold.com

US Securities and Exchange Commission

I, C. Mark Rebagliati, P.Eng, certify that I have read the written disclosure being filed and I do not have any reason to believe that there are any misrepresentations in the information derived from the Technical Report or that the written
disclosure in the Form 40F of Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. contains any misrepresentation of the information contained in 2006 Summary Report on the Pebble Copper-Gold Molybdenum Deposit, Alaska, USA dated March 31, 2007.

I do hereby consent to the filing with the regulatory authorities.

Dated this 1 day of April, 2007.

/s/ Mark Rebagliati

C. Mark Rebagliati, P.Eng.

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-4496

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ELVIN ARTURO VALLADARES-BONILLA,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Elkins. John Preston Bailey, 

Chief District Judge. (2:10-cr-00023-JPB-JSK-1)

Submitted: October 28, 2011 Decided: November 3, 2011

Before WILKINSON, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kristen Leddy, Research and Writing Specialist, Martinsburg, 

West Virginia; L. Richard Walker, Senior Litigator, FEDERAL 

PUBLIC DEFENDER OFFICE, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for 

Appellant. William J. Ihlenfeld, II, United States Attorney, 

Stephen D. Warner, Assistant United States Attorney, Elkins, 

West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Elvin Arturo Valladares-Bonilla, a native and citizen 

of Honduras, was convicted of one count of illegal reentry of a 

deported alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)(2) (2006). He 

was sentenced to a term of time served and one year of 

supervised release. 

Prior to trial, Valladares-Bonilla sought to advance a 

defense of justification, asserting that he returned illegally 

to the United States in order to escape enemies in Honduras who 

sought to kill him for reasons that were not justified. In 

response to Valladares-Bonilla’s pretrial proffer, the 

Government filed a motion in limine to prohibit evidence at 

trial regarding the justification defense. Valladares-Bonilla’s 

sole contention on appeal is that the district court erred in 

granting the Government’s motion in limine to prohibit him from 

advancing a defense of justification. We have thoroughly 

reviewed the record and conclude that the district court 

properly granted the motion in limine because Valladares-Bonilla 

failed to meet the four-prong test set forth in United States v. 

Crittendon, 883 F.2d 326, 330 (4th Cir. 1989), for establishing 

entitlement to a justification defense. Specifically, we agree 

with the district court’s finding that Valladares-Bonilla, who 

paid a “coyote” to take him through Mexico illegally to the 

United States, did not demonstrate that he had no legal 
3

alternative to both the criminal act and the avoidance of the 

threatened harm. Id.

We accordingly affirm the district court’s judgment. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit
31.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT


TO
SECTION 302 OF THE


SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002





I,
William S. Latoff, certify that:





1. I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of DNB Financial Corporation (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 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-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have:





a)
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and





c)
Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter (the Registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
Registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and





5. The
Registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
Registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the Registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):





a) All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the Registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and





b) Any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the Registrant's internal control over financial
reporting.














/s/ William S.
Latoff


William
S. Latoff


Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer


May 15,
2008