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

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          52,181
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             349
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                12,100
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    151,092
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         195,549
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           196,989
<LOANS>                                      1,137,548
<ALLOWANCE>                                      9,748
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,551,695
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,348,607
<SHORT-TERM>                                    33,641
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             11,031
<LONG-TERM>                                     15,054
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        31,252
<OTHER-SE>                                     112,110
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,551,695
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 67,688
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               16,105
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   442
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                84,235
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              33,008
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              35,392
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           48,843
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    3,155
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  24
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 35,462
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 19,304
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      19,304
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,663
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.03
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.77
<LOANS-NON>                                      8,651
<LOANS-PAST>                                       794
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   266
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 9,681
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    3,417
<RECOVERIES>                                       329
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                9,748
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             9,748
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

LIFETIME INDUSTRIES, INC., )

)

Plaintiff/Counter Defendant )

)

vs. ) CASE NOS. 3:16-CV-559 RLM-MGG

)

)

TRIM-LOK, INC., )

)

Defendant/Counter Claimant )

ORDER

The joint motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 41] is GRANTED, and this case is

DISMISSED with prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs. The Clerk is

directed to enter judgment accordingly.

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: October 31, 2017 

 /s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr. 

Judge

United States District Court
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Communications Commission

          - 47 CFR Parts 2, 15, 90 and 95
          - [ET Docket No 19-138; Report No. 3176; FRS 34533]

# AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission.

# ACTION:

Petition for reconsideration.

# SUMMARY:

Petitions for Reconsideration (Petitions) have been filed in the Commission's rulemaking proceeding by Sean T. Conway, on behalf of 5G Automotive Association, Julian Gehman, on behalf of The Amateur Radio Emergency Data Network, and Hilary Cain, on behalf of The Alliance for Automotive Innovation.

# DATES:

Oppositions to the Petitions must be filed on or before July 22, 2021. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before August 2, 2021.

# ADDRESSES:

Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jamie Coleman, Office of Engineering and Technology, Policy and Rules Division, (202) 418-2705 or *jamie.coleman@fcc.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This is a summary of the Commission's document, Report No. 3176, released June 16, 2021. The full text of the Petitions can be accessed online via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System at: *http://apps.fcc.gov/​ecfs/​.* The Commission will not send a Congressional Review Act (CRA) submission to Congress or the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), because no rules are being adopted by the Commission.

*Subject:* Use of the 5.850-5.925 GHz Band, FCC 20-164, published at 86 FR 23281, May 3, 2021, ET Docket No. 19-138. This document is being published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). *See also*47 CFR 1.4(b)(1) and 1.429(f), (g).

*Number of Petitions Filed*: 3.

Federal Communications Commission.

Marlene Dortch,

Secretary, Office of the Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2021-14494 Filed 7-6-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Exhibit 31.2**CERTIFICATION**I, Todd P. Headley, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Sourcefire, Inc. for the fiscal yearended December 31, 2007;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:               a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;               b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, 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 financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee 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 internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and               b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date: February 28, 2008 By:  /s/ Todd P. Headley    Name:  Todd P. Headley    Title:  Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

FORT WAYNE DIVISION 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) 

 ) 

 v. ) CASE NO.: 1:15-CR-49-TLS-1 

 ) 

TYWAN CHURCH ) 

 

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

 This matter is before the Court on the Findings and Recommendation of the United States 

Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 25], filed on January 12, 2016. The Defendant has waived objection 

to the Findings and Recommendation, and the Court, being duly advised, adopts the Findings 

and Recommendation [ECF No. 25] in its entirety and accepts the recommended disposition. 

Subject to this Court’s consideration of the Plea Agreement pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal 

Procedure 11(c), the plea of guilty to the offense charged in Count One (1) of the Indictment is 

hereby accepted, and the Defendant is adjudged guilty of such offense. 

 The notice of sentencing and pre-sentence scheduling deadlines will be issued by separate 

order.

SO ORDERED on January 27, 2016. 

 s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

 THERESA L. SPRINGMANN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk March 8, 2011

p0228 

# Order

March 8, 2011

141409

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 141409 COA: 296995 Kent CC: 05-012514-FC JACINTO PENA, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e application for leave to ap peal the May 21, 2010 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has
failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-50808

Summary Calendar

 

ROBERT L. MOONE, 

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

GARY JOHNSON,

Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. A-97-CV-426

- - - - - - - - - -

July 1, 1998

Before DUHE’, DeMOSS and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Robert L. Moone, Texas prisoner # 513855, appeals the

district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. He

contends that the district court erred in dismissing his § 2254

petition as barred by the one-year statute of limitations in 28

U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). Because Moone’s § 2254 petition was not

filed until May 27, 1997, it was not timely filed within the oneyear statute of limitations period in § 2244(d)(1) which

commenced on April 24, 1996. See United States v. Flores, 135
No. 97-50808 

-2-

F.3d 1000, 1005 (5th Cir. 1998). Therefore, the district court

did not err in dismissing Moone’s § 2254 petition as barred by

the one-year statute of limitations in § 2244(d)(1). Id.

Moone’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. 

Moone’s motion for leave to supplement the record on appeal is

also DENIED.

AFFIRMED; MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DENIED; MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO SUPPLEMENT RECORD ON APPEAL IS DENIED.
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 Terra Nostra Technology Ltd. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Regis Bosse, President and acting CFO, 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; and



(2)

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







Date:  April 14, 2004

By: /s/ Regis Bosse



Name: Regis Bosse

Title:    President and Acting CFO
[Cite as State v. Lindsay , 2015-Ohio-3284.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO BUTLER COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : CASE NOS. CA2015-03-050 CA2015-03-052 : - vs - D E C I S I O N : 8/17/2015 WILLIAM F. LINDSAY : aka WILLIAM F. LINDSEY, : Defendant-Appellant. :

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Case No. CR2013-06-0957

Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Lina N. Alkamhawi, Government Services Center, 315 High Street, 11th Floor, Hamilton, OH 45011-6057, for plaintiff-appellee John T. Willard, P.O. Box 35, Hamilton, Ohio 45012, for defendant-appellant

Per Curiam

. {¶ 1} This cause came on to be considered upon a notice of appeal, the transcript of the docket and journal entries, the transcript of proceedings and original papers from the Butler County Court of Common Pleas, and upon the brief filed by appellant's counsel. {¶ 2} Counsel for defendant-appellan t, William Lindsay, has filed a brief with this court pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), which (1)Butler CA2015-03-050 CA2915-03-052

- 2 - indicates that a careful review of the record from the proceedings below fails to disclose any errors by the trial court prejudicial to the rights of appellant upon which an assignment of error may be predicated; (2) lists one potential error "that might arguably support the appeal,"

Anders , at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; (3) requests that this court review the record independently to determine whether the proceedings are free from prejudicial error and without infringement of appellant's constitutional rights; (4) req uests permission to withdraw as counsel for appellant on the basis that the appeal is wholly frivolous; and (5) certifies that a copy of both the brief and motion to withdraw have been served upon appellant. {¶ 3} Having allowed appellant sufficient time to respond, and no response having been received, we have accordingly examined the record and find no error prejudicial to appellant's rights in the proceedings in the tr ial court. The motion of counsel for appellant requesting to wit hdraw as counsel is grant ed, and this a ppeal is dismissed for the reason that it is wholly frivolous.

S. POWELL, P.J., RINGLAND and HENDRICKSON, JJ., concur.
#### SMITH et al., Respondents, v. IRVIN et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

October 25, 1907.)

Action by Mary I. Smith and another against Mary M. Irvin, individually etc., and others. F. Woodbridge, for appellants. R. K. Prentice, for respondents.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with §10 costs and disbursements. Order filed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Be th Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 29, 2015

s0921 

# Order

Clerk September 29, 2015

150716

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHI GAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 150716

COA: 323669

Kent CC: 11

- 010602

- FH

PABLO GABRIEL MARTINEZ

, Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 19 , 2014

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Von McDaniels, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Moskowitz, J.), both rendered March 17, 1983, convicting him of attempted robbery in the first degree, robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree, upon his pleas of guilty and imposing sentences.

Judgments affirmed.

Criminal Term initially promised defendant three concurrent terms of 2 to 6 years for the crimes charged on the condition that he appear for sentencing and explicitly told him that “[i]f you fail to appear, all bets are off [and] [t]he police will pick you up and I will give you what I think you deserve”. Thereafter, defendant failed to appear for sentencing. When he was eventually produced in court and the court learned that he had been arrested, thus preventing his appearance at the original sentencing date, the court indicated that it would no longer be bound by its promise of 2 to 6 years, that it would impose concurrent sentences of 3 to 9 years, and that it would reconsider its decision if defendant was cleared of the pending charges and returned to request reconsideration. On appeal, defendant’s *877principal contention is that the court erred in not giving him an opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea when it declined to adhere to the original sentence agreement.

A sentencing court need not permit a defendant to withdraw a plea where, as here, the defendant himself has failed to fulfill an explicit condition underlying the sentence agreement *(see, People v Davis,*106 AD2d 657; *People v Murello,*47 AD2d 528, *affd*39 NY2d 879). There is nothing in the instant record to indicate that defendant was mistakenly or improperly arrested or that the acts he committed that led to his arrest were involuntary. In this regard, we note that defendant never availed himself of the court’s offer to reconsider the sentence if he was later exonerated of the pending charges, nor does he make any claim of innocence in his appellate brief or shed any light whatsoever on the disposition of these charges.

We have considered defendant’s additional contention that the sentences imposed were excessive and find the contention to be without merit. Lazer, J. P., Gibbons, O’Connor and Brown, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 129 (Friday, July 9, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 36280]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14618]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9057-3]


Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General 
Information 202-564-5632 or https://www.epa.gov/nepa.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)
Filed June 28, 2021 10 a.m. EST Through July 2, 2021 10 a.m. EST
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

    Notice: Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make 
public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's 
comment letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/action/eis/search.

EIS No. 20210087, Draft, USFS, OR, Youngs Rock Rigdon, Comment Period 
Ends: 08/23/2021, Contact: Hilary Krieger 541-460-0754.
EIS No. 20210088, Final, USFS, CO, Berlaimont Estates Access Route, 
Review Period Ends: 08/09/2021, Contact: Leanne Veldhuis 970-471-1796.
EIS No. 20210089, Final, FRA, GA, Atlanta to Charlotte Rail Corridor 
Investment Plan, Contact: John Winkle 202-493-6067.

    Under 23 U.S.C. 139(n)(2), FRA has issued a single document that 
consists of a final environmental impact statement and record of 
decision. Therefore, the 30-day wait/review period under NEPA does not 
apply to this action.

EIS No. 20210090, Draft, NOAA, NY, Proposed Lake Ontario National 
Marine Sanctuary Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft 
Management Plan, Comment Period Ends: 09/10/2021, Contact: Ellen Brody 
734-276-6387.
EIS No. 20210091, Third Final Supplemental, USFS, AK, Kensington Gold 
Mine Plan of Operations Amendment 1, Review Period Ends: 08/23/2021, 
Contact: Matthew Reece 907-789-6274.
EIS No. 20210092, Draft, USAF, ID, Airspace Optimization for Readiness 
for Mountain Home Air Force Base, Comment Period Ends: 08/23/2021, 
Contact: Robin Divine 210-925-2730.
EIS No. 20210093, Final Supplement, USFS, ID, Clear Creek Integrated 
Restoration Project, Review Period Ends: 08/09/2021, Contact: Karen 
Ritland 208-963-4203.
EIS No. 20210094, Draft, FERC, PA, East 300 Upgrade Project, Comment 
Period Ends: 08/23/2021, Contact: Office of External Affairs 866-208-
3372.

    Dated: July 2, 2021.
Candi Schaedle,
Acting Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal 
Activities.
[FR Doc. 2021-14618 Filed 7-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
##### 



(i)
    
    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 Fund, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others
within those entities, particularly during the period in
which the Report is being prepared;(ii)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the Funds disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in the Report our
conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period
covered by the Report based on such evaluation; and(iii)
    
    disclosed in the Report any change in the Funds internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the
Funds most recent fiscal quarter that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,
the Funds internal control over financial reporting; and
  (i)
    
    all significant deficiencies in the design or operation
of internal controls over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the Funds ability
to record, process, summarize and report financial data
and have identified for the Funds auditors any material
weaknesses in internal controls; and(ii)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant
role in the Funds internal control over financial
reporting.
 By:
    /s/ Christian BahaChristian BahaPresident and Chief Executive Officer 
March 30, 2007