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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM UNIVISION
COMMUNICATIONS INC. AND SUBSIDARIES STATEMENTS OF EARNINGS AND BALANCE SHEETS
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          11,588
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   96,692
<ALLOWANCES>                                     8,738
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               111,790
<PP&E>                                         125,556
<DEPRECIATION>                                  22,183
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 884,367
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          120,350
<BONDS>                                        498,137
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           426
<OTHER-SE>                                     261,781
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   884,367
<SALES>                                        244,858
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               244,858
<CGS>                                           58,443
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   58,443
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,986
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              41,691
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 24,307
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,714
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             18,593
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (8,228)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,365
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .18


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>

    THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED
MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1                  
<CURRENCY> U.S.               
       
<S>                                                    <C>        
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        3-MOS        
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998        
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998       
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998        
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                          1        
<CASH>                                              44,729        
<SECURITIES>                                        30,867        
<RECEIVABLES>                                       32,690     
<ALLOWANCES>                                         1,845   
<INVENTORY>                                              0        
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   112,035 
<PP&E>                                              15,447  
<DEPRECIATION>                                       3,116   
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     128,791 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               29,505  
<BONDS>                                              1,302   
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0        
<PREFERRED>                                             48        
<COMMON>                                                96       
<OTHER-SE>                                          97,590 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       128,791
<SALES>                                                  0        
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    38,022  
<CGS>                                                    0        
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       16,250   
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     9,366   
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       355      
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      30      
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     12,021  
<INCOME-TAX>                                         2,825     
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  9,196 
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0        
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0        
<CHANGES>                                                0        
<NET-INCOME>                                         9,196   
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         0.24      
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.23      
<FN>
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF BLOUNT INTERNATIONAL, INC. FOR THE PERIOD ENDED
JUNE 30, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                              JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                              38
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      162
<ALLOWANCES>                                         4
<INVENTORY>                                        131
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   355
<PP&E>                                             396
<DEPRECIATION>                                     221
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     689
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               99
<BONDS>                                            162
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                         367
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       689
<SALES>                                            368
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   368
<CGS>                                              263
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      263
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   7
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     27
<INCOME-TAX>                                        10
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 18
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        18
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.47



</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.3

CERTIFICATIONS

I,
Francis J. Martin, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A of NMT Medical, Inc.; and

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material
fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;





|                     |  |                                                                                      
|-------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: April 30, 2010 |  | /S/    FRANCIS J.
MARTIN                                                             
|                     |  | Francis J. Martin
President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jose Rodriguez, Appellant.

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lentol, J.), rendered April 30, 1976, convicting him of attempted robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, as we must *(see, People v Malizia,*62 NY2d 755, 757, *cert denied*469 US 932; *People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620, 621), we find that the defendant’s guilt was established beyond a reasonable doubt.

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be either without merit or unpreserved for appellate review. Mangano, J. P., Brown, Weinstein and Spatt, JJ., concur.
H. R. 2131 

One Hundred Fourteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the sixth day of January, two thousand and fifteen 

An Act 

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located at 83 

Meeting Street in Charleston, South Carolina, as the ‘‘J. Waties Waring Judicial 

Center’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. J. WATIES WARING FEDERAL BUILDING AND UNITED 

STATES COURTHOUSE. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The Federal building and United States 

courthouse located at 83 Meeting Street in Charleston, South Carolina, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘J. Waties Waring 

Judicial Center’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal 

building and United States courthouse referred to in subsection 

(a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘J. Waties Waring 

Judicial Center’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
#### Captain Bennett v. The State.

Where there are two counts in an indictment, charging two degrees of the same offense, and the defendant fails to elect on which he will be" tried, the jury may find him guilty of the degree charged, and the court will not disturb the verdict.

Appeal from Guadalupe. The case was tried before Hon. John Ireland, one of the district judges.

The appellant was indicted in two counts, one for playing cards in a public place, the other for playing in a gaming-room attached to a liquor-shop. (Paschal’s Dig., Arts. 2044, 2045, Hotes 640, 641.) The defendant moved to quash, on the ground of this improper joinder, which motion was overruled. The jury found the defendant guilty generally, and assessed his fine at $10, upon which there was judgment, and from this he appealed. The charge of the court took no notice of there being two counts. „

Ho brief for appellant has been furnished to the *Reporter.*

*E. B. Turner, Attorney Cfeneral,*for the state.

— The testimony shows a playing with cards at a house for retailing spirituous liquors. (Paschal’s Dig., Arts. 2044, 2045, Notes 640, 641.)

Lindsay, J.

—Where there are two counts or charges in an indictment, embracing two different offenses of the same class and the same degree, and there is a verdict of “guilty” found by the jury, they can only assess one penalty against the accused. If two offenses be charged in the indictment, of the same class, but of different degrees, the party accused may make his election upon which he will be tried. Failing to do so, the jury may assess the penalty for either offense, if the evidence in the cause *304warrant the conviction upon either. This may be regarded as one of the improvements of the code of criminal procedure upon the common-law methods of trial for penal offenses. There is no error in the judgment which needs correction, and it is therefore

Affirmed.
----

**EXHIBIT 32.****2**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIALOFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANTTO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Colin P. Sutherland, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Silver Dragon Resources Inc. on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2007, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-KSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Silver Dragon Resources Inc.

Dated: March 31, 2008

By:  

*/s/ Colin Sutherland                                        *Colin P. Sutherland Chief Financial Officer

----
[870 NE2d 680, 839 NYS2d 441]

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Cynthia Long, Appellant.

Decided June 12, 2007

*1015APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Center for Appellate Litigation,*New York City *(Robert S. Dean*of counsel), for appellant.

*Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney,*New York City *{Tracy L. Conn*and *Mark Dwyer*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorándum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. Supreme Court properly denied defendant’s motion for a *Mapp/Dunaway*hearing in light of defendant’s failure to raise a factual dispute as to reasonable suspicion for her detention and subsequent arrest. “[T]he sufficiency of defendant’s factual allegations should be evaluated by (1) the face of the pleadings, (2) assessed in conjunction with the context of the motion, and (3) defendant’s access to information” *(People v Mendoza,*82 NY2d 415, 426 [1993]; *see also People v Lopez,*5 NY3d 753, 754 [2005]). Under the circumstances of this case, defendant had ample access to relevant information regarding the factual predicate for her arrest, including access to the People’s “write-up” of her conduct which the court read to her and her counsel at arraignment. Defendant failed to specifically challenge the identified informant’s basis of knowledge in her suppression motion *(cf. People v Bryant,*8 NY3d 530, 534).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed in a memorandum.
#### In the Matter of William F. Cooke, Petitioner, v Thomas P. DiNapoli, as State Comptroller, Respondent.

[947 NYS2d 680]

*1341Malone Jr., J.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which denied petitioner’s application for accidental disability retirement benefits.

Petitioner, a police lieutenant, sustained an injury in August 2006 when his right knee struck a cement sidewalk while he was attempting to subdue a suspect. As a result of the injury, petitioner applied for accidental disability retirement benefits in August 2007. Following a hearing and the submission of medical documentation, respondent denied petitioner’s application on the basis that he was not permanently incapacitated from performing his duties. Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding, and we now confirm.

An applicant seeking accidental disability retirement benefits bears the burden of demonstrating that he or she is permanently incapacitated from performing his or her job duties *(see Matter of Capraro v DiNapoli,*91 AD3d 1020, 1021 [2012]; *Matter of Kutzma v New York State Comptroller,*90 AD3d 1291, 1291 [2011]). The resolution of conflicting medical opinions and credibility assessments are within the authority of respondent *(see Matter of Mazzei v DiNapoli,*90 AD3d 1458, 1459 [2011]; *Matter of O’Connor v DiNapoli,*89 AD3d 1367, 1368 [2011]). Here, respondent relied upon the reports of a board-certified orthopedist, who performed an independent medical examination, reviewed petitioner’s records and opined that he was not permanently disabled. Notably, although petitioner submitted medical evidence that he was presently unable to perform his job duties, he submitted no definitive opinion that he was permanently incapacitated. As such, we find respondent’s determination supported by substantial evidence *(see Matter of Mazzei v DiNapoli,*90 AD3d at 1459; *Matter of O’Connor v DiNapoli,*89 AD3d at 1368).

Peters, P.J., Spain, Kavanagh and Garry, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
#### Danie MORRIS, Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 10-5379.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

April 6, 2011.

Danie Morris, Fort Dix, NJ, pro se.

Warden, Fort Dix, NJ, for Appellant.

R. Craig Lawrence, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Washington, DC, for Appellee.

Before: SENTELLE, Chief Judge, and HENDERSON and KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judges.

*JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief and supplements filed by the appellant. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed October 12, 2010, be affirmed. The district court properly denied appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, because appellant’s collateral attack on his conviction and sentence must be pursued through a motion to vacate his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 filed in the court in which *3he was convicted and sentenced. Although “the savings clause of [28 U.S.C.] § 2255 provides that if the ‘remedy by motion is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention,’ the prisoner may utilize [28 U.S.C.] § 2241 to collaterally attack the legality of his conviction or sentence,” *In re Smith,*285 F.3d 6, 8 (D.C.Cir.2002) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e)), appellant has not demonstrated that his remedy was “inadequate or ineffective.” In any event, the appropriate forum for a habeas petition is the district in which appellant is confined. *See id.; Chatman-Bey. v. Thornburgh,*864 F.2d 804, 806 n. 1 (D.C.Cir.1988) (en banc).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.
#### In the Matter of Donald Schupak, Appellant, v Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Marbletown et al., Respondents.

Submitted November 20, 2006;

decided January 16, 2007

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from that portion of the Appellate Division order that affirmed Supreme Court’s dismissal of the petition, denied; motion for leave to appeal otherwise dismissed upon the ground that the remaining part of the Appellate Division order does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.
Exhibit 32.3



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 Quarterly Report of Secure Computing Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Timothy J. Steinkopf, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



|                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------
|                                                 
|/s/    TIMOTHY J.
STEINKOPF                      
|Timothy J. Steinkopf                             
|Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|                                                 
|August 9, 2004
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2307 

To validate final patent number 27–2005–0081, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 13, 2015 

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

on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To validate final patent number 27–2005–0081, and for 

other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. FINAL PATENT AND LAND RECONFIGURATION 

4 IN CLARK COUNTY AND LINCOLN COUNTY, 

5 NEVADA. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Patent number 27–2005–0081 

7 and the associated land reconfiguration issued by the Bu8 reau of Land Management on February 18, 2005, as de9 picted on the map prepared by the Bureau of Land Man10 agement entitled ‘‘Lincoln County Land Patent’’ and 

11 dated December 4, 2014, is affirmed and validated as havVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:45 May 15, 2015 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2307.IH H2307

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2307 IH

1 ing been issued pursuant to, and in compliance with, the 

2 Nevada-Florida Land Exchange Authorization Act of 

3 1988 (Public Law 100–275; 102 Stat. 52), the National 

4 Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

5 seq.), and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

6 of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) for the benefit of the 

7 desert tortoise, other species, and the habitat of the desert 

8 tortoise and other species to increase the likelihood of the 

9 recovery of the desert tortoise and other species. 

10 (b) ISSUANCE OF LINCOLN COUNTY PATENT.— 

11 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Director of the Bureau 

12 of Land Management may issue a patent for 7,548 

13 acres of land in Lincoln County, Nevada, that is— 

14 (A) depicted on the map described in sub15 section (a); and 

16 (B) described in the legal description of 

17 the proposed lease and fee land on file in the 

18 Ely District Office of the Bureau of Land Man19 agement. 

20 (2) APPLICABLE LAW.—A patent issued under 

21 paragraph (1) shall be considered to have been 

22 issued pursuant to, and in compliance with, the Ne23 vada-Florida Land Exchange Authorization Act of 

24 1988 (Public Law 100–275; 102 Stat. 52). 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2307 IH

1 (c) RATIFICATION OF RECONFIGURATION.—The 

2 process used by the United States Fish and Wildlife Serv3 ice and the Bureau of Land Management in reconfiguring 

4 the land described in subsection (a), as depicted on Ex5 hibit 1–4 of the Final Environmental Impact Statement 

6 for the Planned Development Project MSHCP, Lincoln 

7 County, NV (FWS–R8–ES–2008–N0136) and the recon8 figuration provided for in Special Condition 10 of Army 

9 Corps of Engineers Permit No. 200125042 are ratified. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, Appellant, v Sonitrol Security Systems of Syracuse, Inc., Respondent.

— Order unanimously affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated at Special Term, Lawton, J. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Lawton, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Denman, Boomer, Pine and Balio, JJ.