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

<ARTICLE> UT
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                   76,251,158
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                 44,912,510
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                      26,070,350
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                             0
<OTHER-ASSETS>                               3,200,500
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             150,434,518
<COMMON>                                    19,578,221
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                   24,790,505
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                         25,622,345
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>              69,991,071
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                 12,780,170
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                        44,000,000
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                3,000,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>              20,663,277
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>              150,434,518
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                   15,165,045
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                         1,746,569
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                           0
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                  11,316,753
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                      3,848,292
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                             619,797
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>               4,468,089
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       659,652
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,061,868
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                    168,108
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                1,893,760
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                     1,433,624
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                       6,918,774
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .40
        

</TABLE>
Kenneth P. NELSON, petitioner, v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security.

No. 18-5120.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 4, 2019.

Petition for rehearing denied.
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1403

To nullify the effect of certain provisions of various Executive orders.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 14, 1999

Mr. BARR of Georgia introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on International Relations

A BILL

To nullify the effect of certain provisions of various Executive

orders.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Terrorist Elimination

5 Act of 1999’’.

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

7 Congress finds that—

8 (1) past Presidents have issued Executive or9 ders which severely limit the use of the military

10 when dealing with potential threats against the

11 United States of America;
2

•HR 1403 IH

1 (2) these Executive orders limit the swift, sure,

2 and precise action needed by the United States to

3 protect our national security;

4 (3) present strategy allows the military forces

5 to bomb large targets hoping to eliminate a terrorist

6 leader, but prevents our country from designing a

7 limited action which would specifically accomplish

8 that purpose;

9 (4) on several occasions the military has been

10 ordered to use a military strike hoping, in most

11 cases unsuccessfully, to remove a terrorist leader

12 who has committed crimes against the United State;

13 (5) as the threat from terrorism grows, America

14 must continue to investigate effective ways to com15 bat the menace posed by those who would murder

16 American citizens simply to make a political point;

17 and

18 (6) actions by the United States Government to

19 remove such persons is a remedy which should be

20 used sparingly and considered only after all other

21 reasonable options have failed or are not available;

22 however, this is an option our country must main23 tain for cases in which international threats cannot

24 be eliminated by other means.
3

•HR 1403 IH

1 SEC. 3. NULLIFICATION OF EFFECT OF CERTAIN PROVI2 SIONS OF VARIOUS EXECUTIVE ORDERS.

3 The following provisions of Executive orders shall

4 have no further force or effect:

5 (1) Section 5(g) of Executive Order 11905.

6 (2) Section 2–305 of Executive Order 12036.

7 (3) Section 2.11 of Executive Order 12333.

Æ
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed May 1, 2019.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for reh earing.

________________

No. 3D19- 0013

Lower Tribunal No. 15- 14018

________________



### Thomas Machinery, Inc.,

Petitioner,

vs.



### Ainsworth International, LLC,

Respondent.

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade

County, Mavel Ruiz, Judge.

Zebersky Payne Shaw Lewenz, LLP, and Jordan A. Shaw and Kimberly A.

Slaven (Fort Lauderdale), for petitioner.

Joseph E. Altschul, LLC, and Joseph E. Altschul and Alexandria L. Beaton

(Pembroke Pines), for respondent.

Before LOGUE, SCALES and HENDON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

ON MOTION TO DISMISSPetitioner, defendant below, Thomas Machinery, Inc., seeks certiorari

review of a non-final order of the trial court denying Petitioner’s motion for leave

to file an amended answer and affirmative defenses. We grant Respondent’s

motion to dismiss the petition because we lack certiorari jurisdiction to review the

subject order; any error in denying Petitioner’s leave to amend its pleadings is

reviewable on plenary appeal. Harry Pepper & Assocs, Inc. v. City of Cape Coral

,

369 So. 2d 969, 970 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).

Petition dismissed.

2
Exhibit 31.4

CERTIFICATION

I, Kevin Lind, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to annual report on Form 10-K of Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and

2.    Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report.

 

 

| Date: May 5, 2017 |   | /s/ Kevin Lind                          |
|-------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------|
|              |   | Kevin Lind, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|              |   | (principal financial and accounting officer)                     |
**AMENDMENT TO BYLAWS**

**OF**

**THE BEARD COMPANY**

 

**Effective September 8, 2009**

The Bylaws of The Beard Company, an Oklahoma corporation (the “Corporation”), were amended by Resolution of the Board of Directors on September 8, 2009 in accordance with the Restated Certificate of Incorporation and Bylaws of the Corporation, and the statutes of the State of Oklahoma, as follows:

Section 7 of Article I of the Bylaws was amended in its entirety as follows:

Any action required or permitted to be taken at a meeting of the stockholders may be taken without a meeting, without prior notice and without a vote, if a consent in writing, setting forth the action so taken, shall be signed by the holders of outstanding stock having not less than the number of votes which would be necessary to authorize or take such action at a meeting at which all shares entitled to vote thereon were present and voted.  The board of directors may fix, in advance, the record date for determining stockholders entitled to express consent to corporate action in writing without a meeting, which shall not be more than sixty (60) days prior to the taking of such action.  Prompt notice of the taking of corporate action without a meeting by less than unanimous written consent shall be given to those stockholders who have not consented in writing.

 

|   | /s/  Hue Green   |
|--------|--------------------------------------|

Hue Green, Secretary
Toney Deron DAVIS, petitioner, v. Julie L. JONES, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.

No. 17-9435.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida denied.
```
  
 
VIX FUTURES - CBOE FUTURES EXCHANGE                                  Code-1170E1
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 05/17/11          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
($1000 X INDEX)                                      OPEN INTEREST:      244,181
COMMITMENTS
  30,356   37,590   45,169  140,213  141,526  215,737  224,285   28,443   19,896

CHANGES FROM 05/10/11 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     16,112)
     679   -3,557    4,879   12,745   14,533   18,303   15,855   -2,191      257

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    12.4     15.4     18.5     57.4     58.0     88.4     91.9     11.6      8.1

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      127)
      46       29       55       29       29      111       98
```

----

Updated May 20, 2011
```
 
 
WHEAT - KANSAS CITY BOARD OF TRADE                                   Code-001612
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 08/30/11                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      163,888
COMMITMENTS
  63,991    8,994   24,101   53,843  106,728  141,935  139,823   21,953   24,065

CHANGES FROM 08/23/11 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:     -7,836)
   2,305   -2,157    1,617   -9,861   -5,021   -5,939   -5,561   -1,897   -2,275

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    39.0      5.5     14.7     32.9     65.1     86.6     85.3     13.4     14.7

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      194)
      66       21       59       54       73      145      144
```

----

Updated September 2, 2011
Andrew Wayne HULEN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-5307.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1

                       IPC HOLDINGS, LTD. AND SUBSIDIARIES
         RECONCILIATION OF BASIC AND DILUTED NET INCOME PER COMMON SHARE
   (Expressed in thousands of United States dollars, except for share amounts)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A reconciliation of basic and diluted earnings per share ("EPS") is given in the
following table:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                    Income            Shares          Amount per
                                    ------            ------          ----------
Quarter ended June 30, 2002                                              Share
---------------------------                                              -----
<S>                                 <C>             <C>               <C>
Basic EPS                          $ 48,646         48,172,776          $ 1.01
Effect of Dilutive Options                              99,644
Diluted EPS                        $ 48,646         48,272,420          $ 1.01

Quarter ended June 30, 2001

Basic EPS                          $ 20,835         25,063,072          $ 0.83
Effect of Dilutive Options                           1,267,504
Diluted EPS                        $ 20,835         26,330,576          $ 0.79
</TABLE>

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

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                    Income            Shares          Amount per
                                    ------            ------          ----------
Six months ended June 30, 2002                                           Share
------------------------------                                           -----
<S>                                <C>              <C>               <C>
Basic EPS                          $ 92,153         48,172,776          $ 1.91
Effect of Dilutive Options                              96,295
Diluted EPS                        $ 92,153         48,269,061          $ 1.91

Six months ended June 30, 2001

Basic EPS                          $ 44,740         25,061,854          $ 1.79
Effect of Dilutive Options                           1,238,285
Diluted EPS                        $ 44,740         26,300,139          $ 1.70
</TABLE>
1

The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3590

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Joseph L. Young, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 12, 2007

Filed: October 17, 2007

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Joseph Young (Young) appeals the 235-month prison sentence the district

court1

 imposed after he pled guilty to conspiring to distribute 50 grams or more of a

mixture or substance containing cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),

(b)(1)(A) and 846. Young’s counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing the sentence is unreasonable.
-2-

We conclude Young’s advisory Guidelines imprisonment range was correctly

determined by the district court, and his sentence at the bottom of that range is not

unreasonable. See Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-68 (2007) (allowing

appellate presumption of reasonableness); United States v. Denton, 434 F.3d 1104,

1113 (8th Cir. 2006) (holding a within-Guidelines sentence is presumptively

reasonable). The district court stated it had considered all of the statutory goals of

sentencing, and it mentioned several specific factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

Moreover, nothing in the record indicates the court overlooked a relevant factor, gave

significant weight to an improper factor, or made a clear error of judgment in

imposing the sentence. See United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1004 (8th Cir.

2005) (stating the factors used to review a sentence for reasonableness). After

reviewing the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we

find no nonfrivolous issues.

We grant counsel leave to withdraw, and we affirm.

______________________________
Muffin ANDERSON, petitioner, v. Susan A. LARSEN.

No. 18-5328.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Washington denied.
Carolyn J. EDLIND, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-5028.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
IIB

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1377

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 27, 1999

Recieved; read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service

at 13234 South Baltimore Avenue in Chicago, Illinois,

as the ‘‘John J. Buchanan Post Office Building’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 1377 RFS

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

2 The facility of the United States Postal Service lo3 cated at 13234 South Baltimore Avenue in Chicago, Illi4 nois, is hereby designated as the ‘‘John J. Buchanan Post

5 Office Building’’.

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

7 Any reference in a law, regulation, map, document,

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the facility

9 referred to in section 1 shall be considered to be a ref10 erence to the ‘‘John J. Buchanan Post Office Building’’.

Passed the House of Representatives May 24, 1999.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.
Exhibit 32.1

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 NB&T Financial Group, Inc. (the Company), on Form 10-Q
for the period ended June 30, 2007, dated the date of this Certification (the Report), I, John J. Limbert, the President and the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. The Report 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.



|                     |  |  |  |                                      
|-------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: August 9, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ John J. Limbert                  
|                     |  |  |  | John J. Limbert                      
|                     |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
Marcus DOTSON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-9505.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Antero RAMOS, petitioner, v. FIRESTONE BUILDING PRODUCTS COMPANY, LLC.

No. 18-1036.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Freddie TAYLOR, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-8252.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 2019.

*1469Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Thomas JURESIC, petitioner, v. ILLINOIS.

No. 18-5370.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District denied.
Samuel COHEN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-8.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Justice BREYER took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Travis Trevino RUNNELS, petitioner, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

No. 18M114.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 18, 2019.

Motion for leave to file a petition for writ of certiorari under seal with redacted copies for the public record granted.
MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-498.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 25, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
H. R. 158

One Hundred Sixth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the sixth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine

An Act

To designate the United States courthouse located at 316 North 26th Street in

Billings, Montana, as the ‘‘James F. Battin United States Courthouse’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

The United States courthouse located at 316 North 26th Street

in Billings, Montana, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘James

F. Battin United States Courthouse’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the United States courthouse

referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the

‘‘James F. Battin United States Courthouse’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
Exhibit 32.1

**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 Timeline, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Charles R. Osenbaugh, President and 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/ CHARLES R. OSENBAUGH                                            | Date:  | August 12, 2004 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------|
|                                                                     |   |            |
| **Charles R.   Osenbaugh,   President and Chief Financial Officer** |   |            |
**Exhibit 21.1**

**Subsidiariesof Ditech Networks, Inc.**
| Entity Name                                     | ** ** | ** **     | ** ** | **Jurisdiction** |
|-------------------------------------------------|------------|----------------|------------|------------------|
| Ditech Communications  Europe Limited           |       | United Kingdom |
| Ditech Communications  Canada, Inc.        |       | Canada         |
| Ditech India Private  Limited                   |       | India          |
| Ditech Communications  International, Inc. |       | USA            |
| Jasomi Networks, Inc.                      |       | USA            |

 

----