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

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                    Mar-31-2000
<CASH>                                   18,738
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                        2
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                          5,988
<TRADING-ASSETS>                              0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>             173,881
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                    1,668
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                      1,666
<LOANS>                                 300,513
<ALLOWANCE>                              (3,800)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          515,032
<DEPOSITS>                              415,765
<SHORT-TERM>                             10,135
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                       4,746
<LONG-TERM>                              51,991
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                  3,223
<OTHER-SE>                               29,172
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>          515,032
<INTEREST-LOAN>                           6,212
<INTEREST-INVEST>                         2,747
<INTEREST-OTHER>                             52
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                          9,011
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                        3,966
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        4,901
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                     4,110
<LOAN-LOSSES>                               100
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                          109
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                           3,687
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           1,413
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                1,162
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                              1,162
<EPS-BASIC>                              0.30
<EPS-DILUTED>                              0.30
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                             3.74
<LOANS-NON>                                 693
<LOANS-PAST>                                777
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                              0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                           3,275
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                          3,701
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                97
<RECOVERIES>                                 96
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                         3,800
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                      3,800
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                           0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                       0


</TABLE>
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Annual Report of IPC Acquisition Corp. (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended September 30, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Timothy Whelan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that: 1. The 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
Company. By:
    
    /s/ Timothy WhelanTimothy WhelanChief Financial OfficerDecember 23, 2004
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to IPC Acquisition Corp. and will be retained by IPC Acquisition Corp.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2312

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain R-core transformers. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 11, 2005

Mr. WILSON of South Carolina introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain Rcore transformers.

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN R-CORE TRANSFORMERS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.85.04 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 certain R-core transformers) is amended by striking ‘‘12/

7 31/2006’’ 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 2312 IH 

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

2 the date of enactment of this Act.

Æ
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2032 

To suspend temporarily the duty on flumiclorac pentyl ester. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 28, 2005 

Mrs. TAUSCHER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on flumiclorac pentyl ester. 

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

3 SECTION 1. FLUMICLORAC PENTYL ESTER. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.33.66 Pentyl [2-chloro-5-(cyclohex1-ene-1,2-dicarboximido)–4- 

fluorophenoxy] acetate (CAS 

No. 87547–04–4) (provided 

for in subheading 

2926.90.25) ......................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2008 ’’. 
2 

•HR 2032 IH 

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

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

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

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
#### Jewett W. Brown et al., Appellants, v. Edgar P. Walker, Respondent.

(Submitted June 17, 1890;

decided June 24, 1890.)

Appeal from order of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, made December 11, 1889, which affirmed an order of the county judge of Saratoga county, setting aside an order granted by him to examine defendant in supplementary proceedings.

*Jesse Stiles*for appellants.

*Willard J. Miner*for respondent.

Agree to affirm; no opinion.

All concur.

Order affirmed.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with theQuarterly Report of National Mercantile Bancorp (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSBfor the period ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David R. Brown, ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

(2)  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company, as of and for the periods covered in the report.
|                   | /s/ DAVID R. BROWN       |   |
|------------------------|--------------------------|--------|
|                   | David R. Brown           |
|                   | Chief Financial  Officer |
|                   |                     |
| Date: October 4,  2006 |

 

1

----
# FDIC

# image1.jpeg
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>
YEAR-TO-DATE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME, CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEETS, AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
FOUND ON PAGES 3,4,5 RESPECTIVELY, ON THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q
FOR THE CURRENT PERIOD ENDED AND THE PREVIOUS PERIOD ENDED,
ARE LISTED BELOW IN TABULAR FORMAT AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       

<S>
                             <C>            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                6-MOS        9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>            DEC-31-1998  DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                 JUL-4-1998   OCT-3-1998
<CASH>                           84,219       94,267
<SECURITIES>                     26,103       22,064
<RECEIVABLES>                    61,119       57,586
<ALLOWANCES>                        958          998
<INVENTORY>                      50,320       52,956
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                210,146      223,302
<PP&E>                          184,442      192,426
<DEPRECIATION>                  100,860      105,665
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  322,286      331,061
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            59,476       59,477
<BONDS>                               0            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0            0
<PREFERRED>                           0            0
<COMMON>                            384          386
<OTHER-SE>                      256,713      265,631
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    322,286      331,061
<SALES>                         135,203      196,367
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                135,203      196,367
<CGS>                            65,084       94,745
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    65,084       94,745
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                 20,691       30,668
<LOSS-PROVISION>                     58           58
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  201          302
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  27,412       37,930
<INCOME-TAX>                      7,812       10,810
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              19,600       27,120
<DISCONTINUED>                        0            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0            0
<CHANGES>                             0            0
<NET-INCOME>                     19,600       27,120
<EPS-PRIMARY>                      0.54         0.74
<EPS-DILUTED>                      0.51         0.71
        

</TABLE>
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

WESTROCK VIRGINIA CORPORATION,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________

2018-1877

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims 

in No. 1:15-cv-00355-LKG, Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby.

______________________

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

______________________

Before PROST, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, LOURIE, DYK, 

MOORE, O’MALLEY, REYNA, WALLACH, TARANTO, CHEN, 

HUGHES, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

Appellant Westrock Virginia Corporation filed a combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc. 

A response to the petition was invited by the court and filed 

by Appellee United States. The petition was referred to the 
2 WESTROCK VIRGINIA CORPORATION v. UNITED STATES

panel that heard the appeal, and thereafter the petition for 

rehearing en banc was referred to the circuit judges who 

are in regular active service.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The petition for panel rehearing is granted for the 

limited purpose of substituting the attached revised 

opinion for the previously issued opinion. See accompanying order.

(2) The petition for rehearing en banc is denied.

(3) The mandate of the court will issue on December 26, 

2019.

FOR THE COURT

 November 4, 2019 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court
NO. 04 -14 -00609

_____________________________________________________________________________

IN THE TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS - FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

IRMA LEMUS and MANUEL LEMUS, JR., Appellants

V.

JOHNNY MONTOYA GARZA, JOHN RENE AGUILAR,

LAURA ASHLEY WELLS and JOHNNY B. WELLS, Appellees

On Appeal from Cause No. 2012- CI -00251, 225th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

______________________________________________________________________________

APPELLEE'S SECOND MOTION FOR EXTENSION

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS:

COME NOW Appellees, JOHNNY MONTOYA GARZA, JOHN RENE AGUILAR,

LAURA ASHLEY WELLS and JOHNNY B. WELLS, and respectfully request that this

Honorable Court grant an additional three to five day s to file their brief on appeal. In support

thereof, they would show the following:

I.

Appellee’s brief is due June 19 th , after an extension of time from June 12 th . Appellees

would respectfully show that properly formatting, bookmarking, assembling and (hopefully)

hyperlinking documents has been a learning experience for the undersigned who appreciates the

additional time already granted. Appellees request additional time of three to five days to finalize

their brief on appeal.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellees respectfully pray that this

Honorable Court order an extension of time to Appellees for filing of their brief to and for such

further relief to which they may be justly entitled. ACCEPTED

04-14-00609-CV

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

6/22/2015 3:21:55 PM

KEITH HOTTLE

CLERKRespectfully submitted,

/s/ Anita J. Anderson

ANITA J. ANDERSON

Texas Bar No. 01165955

LAW OFFICE OF ANITA J. ANDERSON

Conference: 303 West Sunset Suite 103

Correspondence: POB 830722

San Antonio, Texas 78283

Telephone (210) 533

- 8726

Telecopier (210) 633

- 0989

ajanderson1111@gmail.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

A true and correct copy of the above and forgoing has been forwarded by email and e

service to Ana Laura Hessbrook, attorney of record for Defendants Irma Lemus and Manuel

Lemus, Jr. at 4100 N.W. Loop 410, Suite 105, San Antoni o, Texas 78229

hessbrook@sbcglobal.net , (210) 706

- 9467 and Sarah Anne Lishman, 310 South St. Mary’s St.,

Suite 845, San Antonio, Texas 78205, sarahanne@jami egrahamlaw.com (210)308

- 5669 thi s 22d

day of June , 2015.

/s/ Anita J. Anderson

ANITA J. ANDERSON
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

**Certification pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

I, William F. Weissman, certifythat: 

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Rubicon Technology, Inc. (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 statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3. Basedon 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 periodspresented in this report; 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

a) designed suchdisclosure 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 usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

b) evaluated the effectivenessof 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 theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of the annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of 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 of financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

b) anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: May 20, 2008
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED  BALANCE  SHEET  AS OF  SEPTEMBER  30,  1998,  AND  THE  STATEMENT  OF
OPERATIONS  FOR THE PERIOD ENDED  SEPTEMBER  30,  1998,  AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         22
<SECURITIES>                                   2,327
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2,350
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,350
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          8
<BONDS>                                        0
<COMMON>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                                     2,341
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,350
<SALES>                                        354
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               446
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               155
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                292
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            292
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   292
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  1.74
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
**Read the magazine story to find out   more.**Cooked white wheat Asian noodles. Click the image for more information about
          it.For further reading
        New Switchgrass Variety Promises More Biofuel at Lower Cost
          Carbon Sequestration Not So Simple in Biomass Crop Production
          Looking to Wheat's Wild Ancestors to Combat an Evolving Threat New Wheat Line Eliminates Discoloring in Foods By Sandra Avant
April 18, 2016 Getting  rid of gray discoloring in foods such as fresh noodles, breads and refrigerated  biscuits is now possible, thanks to a new white hard wheat breeding line  developed by U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) scientists. Plant  geneticist Bob Graybosch, at the Agricultural Research Service’s (ARS) Grain,  Forage, and Bioenergy Research Unit in Lincoln, Nebraska, developed a wheat that  has no polyphenol oxidase—an enzyme present in all plants that causes discoloring.  The enzyme causes browning in sliced apples, black spots in cut avocados and  dark marks on banana peels. The  new wheat line, 070R1074, was developed by crossing two Australian wheats  entered into the ARS National Small Grains Collection in the 1930s.  Collaborating with the University of Nebraska and Montana State University,  Graybosch screened wheats in the Collection for polyphenol oxidase and then mated  wheats with different forms of the genes that  produced this enzyme. Wheat breeding lines with very low levels of polyphenol  oxidase were generated  from these crosses. Although  some low-polyphenol oxidase hard winter white wheats have been developed, many U.S.  white wheats still have high levels of polyphenol oxidase, according to  Graybosch. High polyphenol oxidase levels make U.S.  producers less competitive in domestic and export markets. In Asia, hard white wheat is popular  for making products such as fresh noodles, and white whole grain breads are  gaining favor in the United States. To be competitive,  U.S. milling companies need wheats with low or no polyphenol oxidase. 
   In  their research, Graybosch and his colleagues discovered naturally occurring  genetic mutations in the new wheat line, which resulted in nearly complete loss  of polyphenol oxidase activity. Researchers have used the trait to improve  breeding lines and could eventually incorporate it into elite lines to produce  highly desirable cultivars. ARS is USDA’s principal intramural scientific research  agency. Read more about this work in the April 2016 issue of *AgResearch*.
* 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 lim ited circumstances set forth in 5 T H C IR

. R.

47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________

No. 97-40555

(Summary Calendar)

_________________

JOHN ERIC JACKSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

VICTOR RODRIGUEZ, Chairman, Board of Pardon

and Parole; TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL

JUSTICE, Transitional Planning Department,

Northern Region,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Texas

(3:97-CV-9)

July 7, 1998

Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

John Eric Jackson, Texas prisoner No. 65 8692, appeals the

district court’s order dismissing as frivolous his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

prisoner civil rights suit. Jackson alleges that the district-2-

court abused its discretion in dismissing his claims that the Texas

Board of Pardon and Paroles improperly considered previous

convictions and writ-writing act ivity in denying him parole and

denied him d ue process of law and equal protection of the laws.

After review of the record and Jackson’s arguments on appeal, we

conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in

dismissing Jackson’s claims as frivolous and accordingly affirm the

district court’s decision. S ee Allison v. Kyle

, 66 F.3d 71, 73

(5th Cir. 1995); Johnson v. Rodriguez

, 110 F.3d 299 (5th Cir.

1997), c ert. denied , ___ U.S. ___, 118 S. Ct. 559, 139 L. Ed. 2d

400 (1997). Jackson’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied.

AFFIRMED; MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DENIED.