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>                                            8933
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             310
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                  2168
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      54252
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           15848
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             15978
<LOANS>                                         241996
<ALLOWANCE>                                       3268
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  339966
<DEPOSITS>                                      278815
<SHORT-TERM>                                      8458
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               2692
<LONG-TERM>                                      17234
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          6621
<OTHER-SE>                                       26146
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  339966
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                   5441
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 1026
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   125
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                  6592
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                2626
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                3024
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                             3568
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      188
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 (1)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   2521
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   1786
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        1308
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      1308
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .47
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .46
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.44
<LOANS-NON>                                        168
<LOANS-PAST>                                      1504
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   130
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  3104
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       50
<RECOVERIES>                                        26
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 3268
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                              3268
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2079 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2079

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to replace the dependent 
care credit for children age 5 and under with an increase in the amount 
               of the child tax credit for such children.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                 May 14 (legislative day, May 13), 1998

 Mr. Smith of Oregon (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Grams, Mr. Abraham, 
Mr. Wyden, and Mr. Hutchinson) introduced the following bill; which was 
          read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to replace the dependent 
care credit for children age 5 and under with an increase in the amount 
               of the child tax credit for such children.

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

SECTION 1. REPLACEMENT OF DEPENDENT CARE CREDIT FOR CHILDREN UNDER AGE 
              6 WITH INCREASE IN CHILD TAX CREDIT.

    (a) Increase in Child Tax Credit.--Subsection (a) of section 24 of 
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to child tax credit) is 
amended by striking ``an amount equal to $500'' and all that follows 
through the period and inserting the following: ``an amount equal to--
            ``(1) $1,500 in the case of a qualifying child who is 5 
        years of age or less, and
            ``(2) $500 in the case of all other qualifying children.''.
    (b) Coordination of Dependent Care Credit.--Section 21 of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to expenses for household and 
dependent care services necessary for gainful employment) is amended by 
inserting ``over the age of 5 and'' before ``under the age of 13'' each 
place it appears in subsections (b)(1)(A) and (e)(5)(B).
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1998.
                                 <all>
```
1 - ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

DON A. WEBSTER JR., 

Petitioner, No. 3:15-cv-00953-CL

v. 

 

MARION FEATHERS, ORDER

 Respondent.

HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:

Magistrate Judge Clarke issued a Findings and Recommendation [24] on August 16, 

2016, in which he recommends that this Court deny Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus [1] and dismiss this proceeding with prejudice. Additionally, Magistrate Judge Clarke

recommends that this Court deny Petitioner a certificate of appealability. The matter is now 

before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).

Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Findings & Recommendation. 

When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings & Recommendation, 

the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's 

Case 3:15-cv-00953-CL Document 32 Filed 11/04/16 Page 1 of 2
2 - ORDER

report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009); United 

States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

I have carefully considered Plaintiff's objections and conclude there is no basis to modify 

the Findings & Recommendation. I have also reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de 

novo and find no other errors in the Magistrate Judge's Findings & Recommendation. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Clarke’s Findings & Recommendation [24].

Accordingly, this case is dismissed with prejudice. In addition, the Court denies a certificate of 

appealability. Any other pending motions are denied as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this _______________ day of _____________________________, 2016.

___________________________________________________

MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-00953-CL Document 32 Filed 11/04/16 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Peter L. Vosotas, certify that:
 1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Nicholas Financial,Inc.;
 2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial 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 misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this report;
 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issueras of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
 4.  The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in ExchangeAct Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:
 a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the small business issuer, including itsconsolidated 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 small business issuer’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
 c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the small businessissuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during thesmall business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small businessissuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.  The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, tothe small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 a)  all significant deficiencies in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and
 b)  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting.   **Date: February 14, 2005**   /s/ Peter L Vosotas   Peter L. Vosotas
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2023-1349

_____________________________

FLOYD SPIVEY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County.

Shonna Young Gay, Judge.

May 31, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

KELSEY, WINOKUR, and NORDBY, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Floyd Spivey, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Holly N. Simcox, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Katherine Eitenmiller, OSB # 145731 

Brent Wells, OSB # 85403 

HARDER, WELLS, BARON & MANNING, P.C. 

474 Willamette Street 

Eugene, OR 97401 

(541) 686-1969 

keitenmiller@hwbm.net 

Of Attorneys for the Plaintiff 

IN THE UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

CARY A. VIRGEN, 

Plaintiff, 

VS. 

COMMISSIONER, 

Social Security Administration , 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Defendant. ) 

Case No. 1:15-cv-01196-JR 

ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY 

FEES PURSUANT TO EAJA 

Based upon the Stipulation of the parties, it is hereby ORDERED that attorney fees in the 

amount of $8,485.21 are hereby awarded to Plaintiff, pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act 

(EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. Payment of this award shall be paid via check made payable to 

Plaintiff and mailed to Plaintiff's attorneys at Harder, Wells, Baron & Manning, P.C., 474 

Willamette Street, Eugene, Oregon 97401. Pursuant to Astrue v. Ratliff, the award shall be made 

payable to Plaintiff's attorney if the commissioner confirms that Plaintiff owes no debt to the 

government through the federal treasury offset program. There are no costs or expenses to be 

paid herein. 

Dated this -Z... C\ day of September 2016. 

PRESENTED BY: 

s/ Katherine Eitenmiller 

Harder, Wells, Baron & Manning, P.C. 

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff 

\ .. -~ l .____ __ _ 

U.S. District Judge/Magistrate 

Case 1:15-cv-01196-JR Document 26 Filed 09/28/16 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.01

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 Caraustar Industries, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-K for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, 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 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



|                     |  |                                                         
|-------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 14, 2008 |  |                                                         
|                     |  | /s/ Michael J. Keough                                   
|                     |  | Michael J. Keough, President and Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit
      32.2**





Written
      Statement of the Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350





Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officer of Traffix, Inc.
      ("Registrant"), hereby certifies that the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form
      10-Q for the three months ended May 31,, 2006 (the "Report") fully complies
      with
      the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Registrant.





/s/ Daniel
              HarveyDANIEL
              HARVEYChief
              Financial Officer
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Michele O. Miller and Robert H. Steelhammer v. Green Bank, N.A.

Appellate case number: 01

- 18

- 00070

- CV

Trial court case number: 2016

- 25547A

Trial court: 281st District Court of Harris County

On February 5, 2019, this Court abated the appeal because appellant, Robert H. Steelhammer, petitioned for voluntary bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Divisio n, under case number 18

- 30385. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 8.2. Through the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system, this Court has learned that the bankruptcy case was closed on October 8, 2019.

Unless any party to the appeal files a response b y February 5, 2021

, indicating that the parties no longer wish to dismiss the appeal , this appeal will be reinstated and dismissed in

accordance with the motion filed on January 23, 2019

.
It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

_____

/s/ Peter Kelly

_______  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: ___ January 5, 2021

____
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Jameson, Appellant.

[945 NYS2d 147] —

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldberg, J.), rendered August 18, 2009, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, sodomy in the first degree, rape in the first degree, and assault in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the Supreme Court erred in denying his motion pursuant to CPL 330.30 (2) is without merit. CPL 330.30 (2) provides that, after the rendition of a verdict of guilty but before the sentence is imposed, the court may, upon the defendant’s motion, set aside the verdict if “during the trial there occurred, out of the presence of the court, improper conduct by a juror, or improper conduct by another person in relation to a juror, which may have affected a substantial right of the defendant and which was not known to the defendant *1237prior to the rendition of the verdict” (CPL 330.30 [2]). However, “[n]ot every misstep by a juror rises to the inherently prejudicial level at which reversal is automatically required” *(People v Lemay,*69 AD3d 757, 758 [2010]; *see People v Rodriguez,*100 NY2d 30, 35 [2003]; *People v Brown,*48 NY2d 388, 394 [1979]). Here, the Supreme Court found that allegations of juror misconduct were established by a preponderance of the evidence. It concluded, however, that the misconduct did not affect a substantial right of the defendant, as it did not result in “the introduction of an outside influence into the deliberative process.” Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the record supports the Supreme Court’s conclusion. Angiolillo, J.P, Lott, Roman and Miller, JJ., concur. [Prior Case History: 24 Misc 3d 1238(A), 2009 NY Slip Op 51800(U).]
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Salvatore J. Distefano, Appellant,<br><br>against<br><br>Spyros Golias, Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Barnes, Iaccarino, &amp; Shepherd, LLP (Michele Joy Harari of counsel), for appellant.Btzalel Hirschhorn, Esq., for respondent.</p><p>Appeal from a judgment of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Cheree A. Buggs, J.), entered October 19, 2015. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, dismissed plaintiff's cause of action and awarded defendant $5,000 on his counterclaim.</p><p>ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.</p><p>Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover his security deposit in the sum of $2,250. Defendant counterclaimed for unpaid rent. After a nonjury trial, the Civil Court dismissed plaintiff's cause of action and awarded defendant $5,000 on his counterclaim.</p><p>In a small claims action, our review is limited to a determination of whether "substantial justice has . . . been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law" (CCA 1807; <i>see</i> CCA 1804; <i>Ross v Friedman</i>, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; <i>Williams v Roper</i>, 269 AD2d 125, 126 [2000]). The determination of a trier of fact as to issues of credibility is given substantial deference, as a trial court's opportunity to observe and evaluate the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses affords it a better perspective from which to assess their credibility (<i>see Vizzari v State of New York</i>, 184 AD2d 564 [1992]; <i>Kincade v Kincade</i>, 178 AD2d 510, 511 [1991]). This deference applies with greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court (<i>see Williams v Roper</i>, 269 AD2d at 126).</p><p>Upon a review of the record, we find that the judgment provided the parties with substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (CCA 1804, 1807). Plaintiff conceded that the rent sought had not been paid and "failed to establish that the premises <font color="FF0000">[*2]</font>were not properly registered as a multiple dwelling when the rent was due" (<a href="../2007/2007_50996.htm" target="_blank"><i>Hunter v Hogans</i>, 15 Misc 3d 139</a>[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 50996[U], *2 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d &amp; 11th Jud Dists 2007]).</p><p>Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.</p><p>WESTON, J.P., ELLIOT and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.</p><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: July 13, 2018<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
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
 Pest Management Research: Sidney, MT
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    NPARL
                        Northern Plains Agricultural Research Laboratory
                                    Agricultural Systems Research Unit
                                    Grasshoppers: Their Biology, Identification and ManagementSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Plains Area Sidney, Montana Northern Plains Agricultural Research Laboratory Pest Management Research PMRU Docs Grasshoppers: Their Biology, Identification and Management: Outbreak and Survey Info





- NPARL Home
- PMRU Home
- ASRU Home
- Site Highlights
- Outbreak and Survey Info
- ID Tools | Apps
- Grasshopper Management
- IPM Handbook
- USDA Research | Contact Info

Outbreak Info: 2013 Adult Grasshopper Survey Mapheadline bar /ARSUserFiles/30320505/grasshopper/Extras/images/Maps/GH2013_AD.jpg Return to Outbreak Info


Return to top


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