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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                       $  46,046
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   62,029
<ALLOWANCES>                                       758
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          12,764
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,768
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 715,035
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        419,602
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,707
<OTHER-SE>                                     162,929
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   715,035
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               170,657
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               353,646
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                21,768
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             100,320
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (304,777)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    10,176
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (314,953)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  43,023
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 53,989
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (217,941)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (22.39)
<EPS-DILUTED>                              $   (22.39)


</TABLE>
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.                  

###### Environmental Protection Agency

          - [FRL-6975-8] 

# AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency. 

# ACTION:

Notice of proposed de minimis settlement. 

# SUMMARY:

                        Under Section 122(g)(4) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has offered a de minimis settlement at the Petroleum Products Superfund Site (Site) under an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) to settle claims for past and future response costs at the Site. Approximately 77 parties have returned signature pages accepting EPA's settlement offer. EPA will consider public comments on the proposed settlement for thirty days. EPA may withdraw from or modify the proposed settlement should such comments                               ( print page 23926)                            disclose facts or considerations which indicate the proposed settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.                     

Copies of the proposed settlement are available from: Ms. Paula V. Batchelor, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, CERCLA Program Services Branch, Waste Management Division, 61 Forsyth Street, S.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303, (404) 562-8887. 

Written comment may be submitted to Mr. Greg Armstrong at the above address within 30 days of the date of publication. 

Dated: May 1, 2001. 

James T. Miller, 

Acting Chief, CERCLA Program Services Branch, Waste Management Division. 

[FR Doc. 01-11834 Filed 5-9-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560-50-U
Exhibit 32


                                 CERTIFICATIONS

By signing below, each of the undersigned  officers hereby certifies pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that, to his or her knowledge,  (i) this report fully complies with the
requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934
and (ii) the  information  contained  in this  report  fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations of Union
Community Bancorp.

Signed this 11th day of August 2004.




/s/ J. Lee Walden                               /s/ Alan L. Grimble
----------------------------------              --------------------------------
J. Lee Walden                                   Alan L. Grimble
Chief Financial Officer                         Chief Executive Officer



A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Union  Community  Bancorp and will
be retained by Union  Community  Bancorp and  furnished  to the  Securities  and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
* 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. 01-20104

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

IGNACIO AREVALO-PEREZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-00-CR-636-ALL

--------------------

December 12, 2001

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Counsel appointed to represent Ignacio Arevalo-Perez has

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Arevalo has not filed

a response. Our independent review of the brief and the record

discloses no nonfrivolous issue in this direct appeal.

Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel

is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL

IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

DERRIUS LAMAR COX, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-4718

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed November 13, 2019.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for 

Hillsborough County; Michelle Sisco, 

Judge.

Derrius Lamar Cox, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Davis v. State, 223 So. 3d 1106, 1108-09 (Fla. 5th DCA 

2017) (holding that when a defendant has reached the age of majority at the time he or 

she violates community control, the defendant is not entitled to be sentenced after the 

violation under the juvenile sentencing statutes).

CASANUEVA, KELLY, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
Case 1:07-cv-05295-AKH Document 36-2 Filed 10/12/2007 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:07-cv-05712-MHD     Document 23-2      Filed 03/26/2008     Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 91 (Thursday, May 10, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 23953]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-11798]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request; Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange 
Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, 
DC 20549

Extension:
    Form S-3, OMB Control No. 3235-0073, SEC File No. 270-61
    Form S-8, OMB Control No. 3235-0066, SEC File No. 270-66

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities and Exchange 
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management 
and Budget requests for extension of the previously approved 
collections of information discussed below.
    Form S-3 is used by issuers to register securities pursuant to the 
Securities Act of 1933. The Commission uses very little of the 
information it collects, except on an occasional basis in the 
enforcement of the securities laws. The likely respondents will be 
companies. The information must be filed with the Commission on 
occasion. Form S-3 is a public document. All information provided is 
mandatory. Approximately 3,483 issuers file Form S-3 at an estimated 
398 hours per response for a total annual burden of 1,385,934 hours.
    Form S-8 is a primary registration statement used by qualified 
registrants to register securities issuers in connection with employee 
benefit plans. Form S-8 provides verification of compliance with 
securities law requirements and assures the public availability and 
dissemination of such information. The likely respondents will be 
companies. The information must be filed with the Commission on 
occasion. Form S-8 is a public document. All information provided is 
mandatory. Approximately 1,660 issuers file Form S-8 at an estimated 24 
hours per response for a total annual burden of 39,840 hours.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid control number.
    Written comments regarding the above information should be directed 
to the following persons: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and 
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503; and (ii) Michael E. Bartell, Associate 
Executive Director, Office of Information Technology, Securities and 
Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549. 
Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice.

    Dated: May 3, 2001.
Margaret H. McFarland,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-11798 Filed 5-9-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
#### In the Matter of Augustus F. Bessinger, Respondent, v William A. Mahoney et al., as Commissioners of the Schenectady County Board of Elections, et al., Appellants.

Per Curiam.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Lynch, J.), entered August 14, 1989 in Schenectady County, which granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16-102, to declare valid the designating petition naming petitioner as the Republican Party candidate for the office of City Councilman of the City of Schenectady in the September 12,1989 primary election.

On July 13, 1989, petitioner filed a petition with the Schenectady County Board of Elections designating him as the Republican Party candidate for the office of City Councilman of the City of Schenectady. Objections were timely filed by respondent David J. Mennillo (hereinafter respondent). By decision dated July 27, 1989, the Board invalidated the designating petition, finding that the wrong primary election date was set forth on each page. On July 31, 1989, petitioner commenced this proceeding to declare his designating petition valid. Respondent served his answer on August 7, 1989, together with a cross motion including various allegations of fraud. After a hearing on August 9, 1989, Supreme Court deemed the proceeding timely, but dismissed respondent’s cross motion as untimely. On the merits, Supreme Court found that the correct primary date of September 12, 1989 was clearly set forth throughout the petition and thus validated the petition. This appeal ensued.

*792Initially, we agree with Supreme Court that the proceeding was timely commenced. We recognize that the 14-day time period, set forth in Election Law § 16-102 (2), for commencing such a proceeding expired July 27, 1989. Petitioner, however, was not notified of the Board’s determination until July 28, 1989, a Friday, and commenced this proceeding the ensuing Monday. Given this time sequence, we find that petitioner acted with due diligence in commencing the proceeding *(see, Matter of Lansner v Board of Elections,*143 AD2d 236; *Matter of Powers v New York State Bd. of Elections,*122 AD2d 970, 971, *appeal dismissed*68 NY2d 806). We reach the opposite conclusion with respect to respondent’s cross motion. An objector must comply with the statutory 14-day time limitation regardless of any determination by the Board *(see, Matter of Thompson v Wallace,*45 NY2d 803, 804; *Matter of Garrow v Mitchell,*112 AD2d 1104, *lv denied*65 NY2d 607). This is particularly so where, as here, allegations of fraud have been raised beyond the domain of the Board *(see, Matter of Hanofee v Board of Elections,*47 Misc 2d 787, 789, *mod on other grounds*24 AD2d 729, *affd*16 NY2d 885).

Upon reviewing the designating petition, we further agree that the correct primary election date was clearly set forth as required by Election Law § 6-132 (1).

Judgment affirmed, without costs. Kane, J. P., Casey, Weiss, Levine and Mercure, JJ., concur.
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.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 3659] 

      ( print page 23966)    

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 [79 Stat. 985, 22 U.S.C. 2459], the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 [112 Stat. 2681                         *et seq.*], Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999 [64 FR 56014], and Delegation of Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999 [64 FR 57920], as amended, I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibit “Mies in Berlin,” imported from abroad for the temporary exhibition without profit within the United States, are of cultural significance. These objects will be imported pursuant to loan agreements with foreign lenders. I also determine that the temporary exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at The Museum of Modern Art, in New York, NY, from on or about June 21, 2001, to on or about September 11, 2001, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these determinations is ordered to be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For further information, including a list of exhibit objects, contact Julianne Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202/619-6529). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001. 

Dated: May 2, 2001.

Helena Kane Finn, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State. 

[FR Doc. 01-11821 Filed 5-9-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710-08-P
Clear All

        01 February 2023    

                    Future USS Idaho crewmembers visit namesake state                 
                Groton-based crewmembers, attached to the Pre-Commissioning Unit (PCU) Idaho (SSN 799), wrapped up a week-long tour of their namesake state in Boise, Idaho, Feb. 1.            

        10 September 2022    

                    USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) conducts annual namesake visit in Michigan                 
                NORFOLK, Va. - Sailors assigned to the aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) visited Grand Rapids, Ann Arbor and Albion, Michigan to honor the legacy of the ship’s namesake, the late President Gerald R. Ford, and connect with local community members, August 31 to September 4, 2022.            

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00022-CR

Edward Flores

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From Criminal District Court No. 1

of Tarrant County (1308739D)

March 13, 2014

Per Curiam

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

PER CURIAM
Clear All

        16 May 2022    

                    Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron 22 Holds Aerial Change of Command                 
                The “Sea Knights” of Helicopter Sea Squadron (HSC) 22, stationed at Naval Station Norfolk, held an aerial change of command ceremony, May 5.            

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
# 3DEP Lidar Base Spec News

3D Elevation Program Lidar Base Specification News and Announcements

**Subscribe**Subscribe

            - Newsletters
            - About

3DEP Lidar Base Spec News

April 11, 2022

#### 3DEP Lidar Base Spec News

New revisions have been added to the LBS Revision Status website. These revisions are proposed and subject to change. 

Lidar Base Specification 2022...

Read Newsletter

Lidar Base Specification 2021 rev. A Now Available

June 24, 2021

#### Lidar Base Specification 2021 rev. A Now Available

*In this newsletter:*

**The Lidar Base Specification 2021 rev. A is now available.**  

New Elevation Specification Resources are available online...

Read Newsletter

Lidar Base Specification 2020 rev. A is now available

August 28, 2020

#### Lidar Base Specification 2020 rev. A is now available

The 3DEP Lidar Base Specification 2020 rev. A is now available!

This release of the Lidar Base Specification (LBS) introduces a new version naming...

Read Newsletter

3DEP Lidar Base Spec News

July 23, 2020

#### 3DEP Lidar Base Spec News

The status of some of the Lidar Base Specification revisions has changed since the last newsletter. 

Changes:

Vertical accuracy assessment using...

Read Newsletter

3DEP Lidar Base Spec News

June 16, 2020

#### 3DEP Lidar Base Spec News

The 3DEP Lidar Base Spec Newsletter will announce updates to the Lidar Base Specification Revision Status page. 

Subscribe to the 3DEP_Lidar_Spec...

Read Newsletter

The 3DEP Lidar Base Spec News is a newsletter produced by the National Geospatial Program's Standards and Specifications group in support of the 3D Elevation Program.

          - Newsletters  Label3DEP Lidar Base Spec NewsApril 11, 20223DEP Lidar Base Spec News
New revisions have been added to the LBS Revision Status website. These revisions are proposed and subject to change. 

Lidar Base Specification 2022...
Read Newsletter**Lidar Base Specification 2021 rev. A Now AvailableJune 24, 2021Lidar Base Specification 2021 rev. A Now Available
*In this newsletter:*

**The Lidar Base Specification 2021 rev. A is now available.**  

New Elevation Specification Resources are available online...
Read Newsletter**Lidar Base Specification 2020 rev. A is now availableAugust 28, 2020Lidar Base Specification 2020 rev. A is now available
The 3DEP Lidar Base Specification 2020 rev. A is now available!

This release of the Lidar Base Specification (LBS) introduces a new version naming...
Read Newsletter**3DEP Lidar Base Spec NewsJuly 23, 20203DEP Lidar Base Spec News
The status of some of the Lidar Base Specification revisions has changed since the last newsletter. 

Changes:

Vertical accuracy assessment using...
Read Newsletter**3DEP Lidar Base Spec NewsJune 16, 20203DEP Lidar Base Spec News
The 3DEP Lidar Base Spec Newsletter will announce updates to the Lidar Base Specification Revision Status page. 

Subscribe to the 3DEP_Lidar_Spec...
Read Newsletter** 
          - About  
The 3DEP Lidar Base Spec News is a newsletter produced by the National Geospatial Program's Standards and Specifications group in support of the 3D Elevation Program.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-2094

In re: EDWARD EAVES,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:16-cv-00129-GCM)

Submitted: December 15, 2016 Decided: December 19, 2016

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward Eaves, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Edward Eaves petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order 

directing the district court to issue an order denying a motion to 

dismiss. We conclude that Eaves is not entitled to mandamus 

relief.

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only 

in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court, 426 

U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 

516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further, mandamus relief is available 

only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. 

In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 

1988). Here, the district court granted defendant’s motion to 

dismiss Eaves’ employment discrimination case. The appropriate 

way to challenge that ruling is by appealing it. Mandamus may not 

be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 

503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). 

The relief sought by Eaves is not available by way of 

mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED