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

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                            1,569,000
<SECURITIES>                                      6,361,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                     1,706,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                       (104,000)
<INVENTORY>                                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  9,631,000
<PP&E>                                            4,910,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (2,113,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   12,428,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             1,136,000
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                          3,924,000
<OTHER-SE>                                        7,028,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     12,428,000
<SALES>                                          12,215,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 12,608,000
<CGS>                                             5,699,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     9,537,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   3,071,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                      1,173,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                      1,898,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                             .57
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           .55


</TABLE>
Holly Energy Partners, L.P.
Computation of Ratio of Earnings
To Fixed Charges
 Three MonthsEndedMarch 31,
    
    
    Years Ended December 31,2011
    
    
    2010
    
    
    2009
    
    
    2008
    
    
    2007
    
    
    2006Earnings:Net income
    
    $
    15,169
    
    
    $
    58,869
    
    
    $
    46,234
    
    
    $
    20,696
    
    
    $
    35,152
    
    
    $
    23,989Add total fixed charges (per below)
    
    
    9,291
    
    
    
    36,598
    
    
    
    24,638
    
    
    
    24,751
    
    
    
    15,125
    
    
    
    14,815Total earnings
    
    $
    24,460
    
    
    $
    95,467
    
    
    $
    70,872
    
    
    $
    45,447
    
    
    $
    50,277
    
    
    $
    38,804Fixed charges:Interest expense
    
    $
    8,549
    
    
    $
    34,001
    
    
    $
    21,501
    
    
    $
    21,763
    
    
    $
    13,289
    
    
    $
    13,056Capitalized interest
    
    
    204
    
    
    
    455
    
    
    
    1,008
    
    
    
    1,007
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Estimate of interest within rental expense (1)
    
    
    538
    
    
    
    2,142
    
    
    
    2,129
    
    
    
    1,981
    
    
    
    1,836
    
    
    
    1,759Total fixed charges
    
    $
    9,291
    
    
    $
    36,598
    
    
    $
    24,638
    
    
    $
    24,751
    
    
    $
    15,125
    
    
    $
    14,815Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    
    
    2.63
    
    
    
    2.61
    
    
    
    2.88
    
    
    
    1.84
    
    
    
    3.32
    
    
    
    2.62
 (1)
    
    Represents 30% of the total operating lease rental expense which is that portion deemed to
be interest.
State of North Carolina, Respondent, v. Luis Alberto Rodriguez, Defendant, and Matthew L. Gregory, Bail Agent, and Financial Casualty & Surety, Surety.

No. COA16-76

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 20, 2016

AFFIRMED.
# Official Journal C 208/2012

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2012.208.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 208 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5514 July 2012 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2012.208.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 208

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5514 July 2012

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2012/C 208/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6557 — AGC Glass Europe/Interpane International Glas) (1) | 1 |
| 2012/C 208/02 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6522 — Groupe Lactalis/Skanemejerier) (1) | 1 |
| 2012/C 208/03 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6629 — Bain Capital/Scandinavian Installation Refi) (1) | 2 |
| 2012/C 208/04 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6512 — DS Smith/SCA Packaging) (1) | 2 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2012/C 208/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6557 — AGC Glass Europe/Interpane International Glas) (1)

1

2012/C 208/02

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6522 — Groupe Lactalis/Skanemejerier) (1)

1

2012/C 208/03

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6629 — Bain Capital/Scandinavian Installation Refi) (1)

2

2012/C 208/04

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6512 — DS Smith/SCA Packaging) (1)

2

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Parliament |
| 2012/C 208/05 | Communication of the European Parliament concerning the European Citizens' Prize — CIVI EUROPAEO PRAEMIUM | 3 |
| | European Commission |
| 2012/C 208/06 | Euro exchange rates | 5 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Parliament

2012/C 208/05

Communication of the European Parliament concerning the European Citizens' Prize — CIVI EUROPAEO PRAEMIUM

CIVI EUROPAEO PRAEMIUM

3

European Commission

2012/C 208/06

Euro exchange rates

5

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2012/C 208/07 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6618 — Raiffeisen Bank International/Raiffeisen Bank Polska) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1) | 6 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2012/C 208/07

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6618 — Raiffeisen Bank International/Raiffeisen Bank Polska) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1)

6

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent, <br><br>against<br><br>Jorge Vega, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Carol R. Feinman, J.), rendered July 2, 2017, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of disorderly conduct, and imposing sentence.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Judgment of conviction (Carol R. Feinman, J.), rendered July 2, 2017, reversed, on the law, accusatory instrument dismissed, and surcharge, if paid, remitted.</p><p>As the People concede, defendant's conviction must be vacated since the plea record lacks the requisite "affirmative showing" that defendant understood and waived his <i>Boykin </i>rights (<i>see Boykin v Alabama</i>, 395 US 238, 242 [1969]; <i>People v Tyrell</i>, 22 NY3d 359, 365 [2013]). The People also agree that dismissal of the accusatory instrument is the appropriate corrective action in this particular case (<i>cf. People v Conceicao</i>, 26 NY3d 375, 385 n 1 [2015]).</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur<br>Decision Date: October 11, 2018<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
In the MATTER OF: D.O., S.O., N.O., P.O.

No. COA16-1272

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: July 5, 2017

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sphere of Language (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended November 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Bruce Bicknell, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



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









Date: January 18, 2006

/s/ Bruce Bicknell

Bruce Bicknell

Chief Financial Officer
#### Greg S. GREENMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 5D01-2841.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Aug. 19, 2003.

James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Rebecca M. Becker, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach for Appellant.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Allison Leigh Morris, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. *See State v. DiGuilio,*491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986).

SAWAYA, C.J., THOMPSON and TORPY, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6428

DARRELL COOK,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GEORGE P. DODSON, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

VIRGINIA,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District

Judge. (CA-97-297-R)

Submitted: May 14, 1998 Decided: June 3, 1998

Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darrell Cook, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Andrew Witmer, OFFICE OF THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on

his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.

1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning

of the district court. Cook v. Dodson, No. CA-97-297-R (W.D. Va.

Mar. 16, 1998). We decline to consider Appellant's challenge to the

constitutionality of 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254(d) because this claim was

raised for the first time on appeal. See United States v. Bornstein, 977 F.2d 112, 115 (4th Cir. 1992). We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

                        PennFed Financial Services, Inc.

              Statement Regarding Computation of Per Share Earnings

                For the Years Ended June 30, 2002, 2001 and 2000

                (Dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)

                                                                                       For the years ended June 30,
                                                                                       ----------------------------

                                                                            2002                 2001               2000
                                                                            ----                 ----               ----

<S>                                                                    <C>                  <C>                  <C>
Net income ..........................................................  $    14,583          $    12,513          $    12,870
                                                                         =========            =========            =========
Number of shares outstanding:
  Weighted average shares issued ....................................   11,900,000           11,900,000           11,899,842
  Less:  Weighted average shares held in treasury ...................    4,383,643            3,891,390            3,261,279
  Less:  Average shares held by the ESOP ............................      952,000              952,000              952,000
  Plus:  ESOP shares released or committed to be
              released during the fiscal year .......................      661,256              552,611              451,541
                                                                         ---------            ---------            ---------
  Average basic shares ..............................................    7,225,613            7,609,221            8,138,104
  Plus:  Average common stock equivalents ...........................      542,809              489,382              444,409
                                                                         ---------            ---------            ---------
  Average diluted shares ............................................    7,768,422            8,098,603            8,582,513
                                                                         =========            =========            =========

Earnings per common share:
         Basic ......................................................  $      2.02          $      1.64          $      1.58
                                                                         =========            =========            =========
         Diluted ....................................................  $      1.88          $      1.55          $      1.50
                                                                         =========            =========            =========
</TABLE>
T 

## 6 O+FlCE.OF THE ATTORNEY **GENERAL** OF TEXAS AUSTIN _.

Roerrablo 

### Will Mmn Blohardroa AulrNa8 8ureaxy of mate Aumtln,Ton* Dwr8lrt rtt~0

rwtut ror 

### fully 0oD61d.?od

v third Quut 68 follrnt

**to knew**  wheahu it



### ~~$lolrlSa&,Vortttb~~a 

### AMotatod Tax88Cirll8t6t

### uwa, road*68 rollorrt

### Bonorablfe Kill idann

iiiehardson,

Page 2 "Thedirectors may adopt by-laws for the 

### ~overmmnt of ths corporation. Such by-lam -may be altered, ohenged or mended by a r;ajorits vote ot tke stockholders at any elactioc or spacial neetins 

### ordered for thst pq~oes by the directors or truzqtees, on c ;iiritthri a?plication cf e naJo13i.y of Lhe stockholders or JQOLbsr5."
STATE of North Carolina v. Antonio Rasheed HAIR

No. COA17-330

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 21, 2017

NO ERROR.
**EXHIBIT 10.63**

The following is a summary description of the arrangements with the Company’s non-employee members of the Board of Directors regarding theircompensation effective as of August 17, 2010: 

Each non-employee director is paid an annual retainer of $60,000 for his or her servicesas a director. Each member of the Compensation Committee (other than the Chairperson) receives an additional annual retainer of $10,000; and the Chairperson of the Compensation Committee receives an annual retainer of $25,000. Each member of theAudit Committee (other than the Chairperson) receives an additional annual retainer of $10,000; and the Chairperson of the Audit Committee receives an annual retainer of $25,000. Each member of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee(other than the Chairperson) receives an additional annual retainer of $10,000; and the Chairperson of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee receives an annual retainer of $15,000. Each member of the Compliance Committee (other than theChairperson) receives an additional annual retainer of $10,000; and the Chairperson of the Compliance Committee receives an annual retainer of $20,000. Non-employee directors will also receive $1,500 for each Board meeting attended in excess of sixBoard meetings in a fiscal year, and each Committee member will receive $1,500 for each Committee meeting attended in excess of six meetings in a year. 

Each non-employee director will also receive an annual grant of deferred stock units (“DSUs”) with a target value of $90,000, calculated basedupon the average closing market price of the Company’s common stock during the month prior to the month in which the grant is made, but in no event to exceed 15,000 DSUs. The lead independent director will also receive an additional annualgrant of DSUs with a target value of $30,000, calculated in the same manner. These DSUs vest upon grant but may not be sold, and remain tax-deferred, until the earlier to occur of (i) five years after the date of grant, (ii) thedirector’s separation from service on the Board, (iii) the director’s death or disability, or (iv) a change-in-control of Corinthian. Directors also may voluntarily elect to receive their annual retainer in an equivalent amountof additional DSUs in lieu of cash. The foregoing summary of the DSU awards is qualified in its entirety by reference to the text of the Form of Director Stock Unit Award Notice, a copy of which was filed as Exhibit 10.2 to the Report on Form 8-Kfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 29, 2008.
The State of 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 30, 2015

No. 04-15-00047-CR

Vicente SALDANA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 81st Judicial District Court, Atascosa County, Texas

Trial Court No. 12-09-0169-CRA

Honorable Stella Saxon, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant’s brief was originally due July 20, 2015; however, the court has granted 

extensions of time to file the brief. On September 8, we ordered appellant’s retained attorney, 

Samuel C. Beale, to file the appellant’s brief by October 18, 2015. Our order advised that the 

court would not grant any further extensions absent a motion that demonstrated extraordinary 

circumstances justifying the delay. Our order also advised Beale that if the brief or a conforming 

motion was not filed by the date ordered, the appeal would be abated and remanded to the trial 

court for a hearing to determine whether appellant or counsel has abandoned the appeal. 

Appellant’s brief has not been filed. However, on October 29, counsel filed a motion requesting 

an additional five days — until November 3, 2015 — to file the brief. 

Counsel’s motion states the delay was due in part to his misplacing the appellate record 

and having difficulty obtaining another copy. The motion also reveals that counsel mistakenly 

believed the brief was not due until October 29.

We grant the motion and order Samuel C. Beale to electronically file appellant’s brief by 

November 3, 2015. 

No further extensions of time will be granted. If appellant’s brief is not filed by the 

date ordered, this appeal may be abated for an abandonment hearing and counsel may be ordered 

to appear and show cause why he should not be held in contempt for failing to comply with this 

court’s order to file appellant’s brief.
_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 30th day of October, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
In the MATTER OF: Mary Ellen Brannon THOMPSON

No. 51P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 16, 2017

Frederick K. Sharpless, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, Molly A. Whitlatch, Attorney at Law, Pamela S. Duffy, Attorney at Law, Burlington, for Thompson, Bryan C.

Reginald D. Alston, Attorney at Law, Winston-Salem, for Thompson, Mary Ellen Brannon (Estate of).

Gloria L. Woods, Assistant County Attorney, for Forsyth County DSS.

John R. Combs, Attorney at Law, Winston-Salem, for GAL.

William M. Speaks, Jr., Attorney at Law, Winston-Salem.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Appellant on the 7th of February 2017 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th of March 2017."
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 801 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.801

                       One Hundred Tenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday,
            the fourth day of January, two thousand and seven

                                 An Act

 
 To designate a United States courthouse located in Fresno, California, 
          as the ``Robert E. Coyle 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 bordered by O Street, P Street, Tulare 
Street, and Capitol Street in Fresno, California, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Robert E. Coyle 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 ``Robert E. Coyle 
United States Courthouse''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```