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

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           12283
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                              91
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 10350
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      17405
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           35199
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             35395
<LOANS>                                         240004
<ALLOWANCE>                                       2755
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  320845
<DEPOSITS>                                      287507
<SHORT-TERM>                                      9842
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               1224
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         22272
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  320845
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  14614
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 2273
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   218
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 17105
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                7483
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                7685
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                             9420
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      190
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   7013
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   3773
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        3773
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      2192
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .61
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .61
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.47
<LOANS-NON>                                        912
<LOANS-PAST>                                       270
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                   1182
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  2755
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      454
<RECOVERIES>                                       538
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 2755
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                              2755
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
(December 15, 1904.)

#### KOOTENAI VALLEY RAILWAY COMPANY v. KOOTENAI COUNTY.

[78 Pac. 1080.]

Appeals *from*Obdebs *of*County Commissioners — Piling Undeb-t a tit wo on Such Appeals not Jurisdictional.

1. An appeal from an order of a board of county commissioners is perfected by serving upon tbe clerk of the board a notice of appeal as required by section 1777, as amended by act of February 14, 1899 (Sess. Laws 1899, p. 248), and the giving and filing an undertaking is not jurisdictional, and the appeal should not he dismissed for a failure to give an undertaking in the absence of an order of the district judge requiring such undertaking.

(Syllabus by the court.)

APPEAL from District Court in and for Kootenai Connty. Honorable Ralph T. Morgan, Judge.

The Kootenai Valley Railway Company appealed from an order of the hoard of county commissioners of Kootenai county and its appeal was dismissed by the district court, from which order and judgment an appeal was taken to this court.

The facts are the same as in the case of *Great Northern By. Go. v. Kootenai County.*

M. J. Gordon and Charles A. Murray, for Appellant. >

Failure to file transcript within the time prescribed by the rules of. the supreme court of this state is ground for dismissal of appeal, and yet, where the appellant was not at- fault, the court refused to dismiss an appeal for failure to file the *387transcript, and said: “A rule, or the construction of a rulé, which would deprive a party of his right of appeal by reason of the default of an officer of the court solely, would be more than inequitable. It would be arbitrary, tyrannical and unjust, and might be destructive of the end for which courts are established and maintained, .... the administration of law and justice.Under statutes and rules similar to ours, it has been uniformly held that, while failure to file a transcript is ground for the dismissal of the appeal, a delay may be excused.” *(Westheinier v. Thompson,*3 Idaho, 418, 31 Pac. 797; *Perkins v. Bridge, ante,*p. 189, .77 Pac. 330; *Mutual Life Ins. Go. v. Phinney,*178 U. S. 327, 20 Sup. Ct. Eep. 906, 44 L. ed. 1088; 2 Ency. of PI. & Pr. 246.)

T. H. Wilson and Charles L. Heitman, for Eespondent,

file no brief.

AILSHIE, J. —

The facts in this case are identical with the facts as contained in the statement preceding the opinion in the ease of *Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Kootenai County, ante,*p. 379, 78 Pac. 1078, decided at this present term, and therefore the judgment of the lower court will be reversed for the same- reasons and on the same grounds as given in that case.

The judgment of the district court is reversed and the cause remanded, with directions to the trial court to reinstate the appeal as taken from the board of county commissioners, and permit the appellant to file such undertaking for security of costs as the judge of that court shall deem sufficient for such purpose.

Sullivan, C. J., and Stockslager, J., concur.
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 184

To convert a temporary Federal judgeship in the district of Hawaii to a

permanent judgeship, to authorize an additional permanent judgeship

in the district of Hawaii, extend statutory authority for magistrate positions in Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 19, 1999

Mr. INOUYE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To convert a temporary Federal judgeship in the district

of Hawaii to a permanent judgeship, to authorize an

additional permanent judgeship in the district of Hawaii,

extend statutory authority for magistrate positions in

Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands, 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. DISTRICT JUDGESHIPS FOR THE DISTRICT OF

4 HAWAII.

5 (a) CONVERSION OF TEMPORARY JUDGESHIP TO

6 PERMANENT JUDGESHIP.—The existing district judgeship
2

•S 184 IS

1 for the district of Hawaii authorized by section 203(c)(2)

2 of the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990 (Public Law

3 101–650, 28 U.S.C. 133 note) shall, as of the date of the

4 enactment of this Act, be authorized under section 133

5 of title 28, United States Code, and the incumbent in that

6 office shall hold the office under section 133 of title 28,

7 United States Code (as amended by this section).

8 (b) ADDITIONAL PERMANENT DISTRICT JUDGE9 SHIP.—The President shall appoint, by and with the ad10 vice and consent of the Senate, 1 additional district judge

11 for the district of Hawaii.

12 (c) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—

13 The table contained in section 133(a) of title 28, United

14 States Code, is amended by striking the item relating to

15 Hawaii and inserting the following:

‘‘Hawaii ...................................................................................................... 5’’.

16 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR MAG17 ISTRATE POSITIONS TO BE ESTABLISHED IN

18 THE DISTRICT COURTS OF GUAM AND THE

19 NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS.

20 Section 631 of title 28, United States Code, is

21 amended—

22 (1) in subsection (a) by striking the first two

23 sentences and inserting the following: ‘‘The judges

24 of each United States district court and the district
3

•S 184 IS

1 courts of the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the North2 ern Mariana Islands shall appoint United States

3 magistrates in such numbers and to serve at such lo4 cations within the judicial districts as the Judicial

5 Conference may determine under this chapter. In

6 the case of a magistrate appointed by the district

7 court of the Virgin Islands, Guam, or the Northern

8 Mariana Islands, this chapter shall apply as though

9 the court appointing such a magistrate were a

10 United States district court.’’; and

11 (2) in subsection (b)(1) by inserting in the first

12 sentence after ‘‘Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,’’ the

13 following: ‘‘the Territory of Guam, the Common14 wealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,’’.

Æ
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.                  

###### Government Accountability Office

# AGENCY:

Government Accountability Office (GAO).

# ACTION:

Notice on letters of nomination.

# SUMMARY:

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act gave the Comptroller General of the United States responsibility for appointing 15 members to the National Health Care Workforce Commission, with appointments to be made not later than September 30th, 2010. Qualifications of the commissioners are identified in Section 5101 of the Act. For these appointments, I am announcing the following: Letters of nomination and resumes should be submitted by June 30th, 2010 to ensure adequate opportunity for review and consideration of nominees prior to appointment of members. Letters of nomination and resumes can be sent to either the e-mail or mailing address listed below.

# ADDRESSES:

                        Nominations can be submitted by either of the following:                         *E-mail: HCWorkforce@gao.gov.**Mail:*                         GAO Health Care, Attention: National Health Care Workforce Commission Nominations, 441 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20548.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

*GAO:*                         Office of Public Affairs, (202) 512–4800.                    

[Section 5101, Pub. L. 111–148]

Gene L. Dodaro,

Acting Comptroller General of the United States.

[FR Doc. 2010–10829 Filed 5–6–10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1610–02–M
got SERV,

CHAIRMAN:

Paul L. Ziemer, Ph.D.
Lafayette, Indiana

MEMBERS:

Josie Beach
Richland, Washington

Bradley P. Clawson
Rexburg, Idaho

Michael H. Gibson
Franklin, Ohio

Mark A. Griffon
Salem, New Hampshire

James E. Lockey, M.D.
Cincinnati, Ohio

James M. Melius, M.D., Ph.D.

Albany, New York

Wanda |, Munn
Richland, Washington

John W. Poston, Sr., Ph.D.
College Station, Texas

Robert W. Presley
Clinton, Tennessee

Genevieve S. Roessler, Ph.D.

Elysian, Minnesota

Phillip Schofield
Bosque Farm, New Mexico

STAFF:
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY:

Lewis V. Wade, Ph.D
Washington, DC

COMMITTEE MANAGEMENT :

LaShawn D. Shields
Atlanta, Georgia

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH
4676 Columbia Parkway, MS: C-46
Cincinnati, Ohio 45226
(513) 533-6825

October 26, 2007

The Honorable Michael O. Leavitt
Secretary of Health and Human Services
Department of Health and Human Services
200 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, DC 20201

bZiA cl OF 190 LOW
ad-HSOIN G3A13934

Dear Mr. Secretary:

The Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (The Board) has
evaluated SEC Petition-00080 concerning workers at the NUMEC
facility under the statutory requirements established by EEOICPA and
incorporated into 42 CFR Sec. 83.13. The Board respectfully
recommends Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) status be accorded to all
Atomic Weapons Employer (AWE) employees who were monitored,
or should have been monitored, for exposure to ionizing radiation
while working at the NUMEC Plant in Apollo, Pennsylvania for a
number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days from January
1, 1957 through December 31, 1983, or in combination with work days
within the parameters established for one or more other classes of
employees in the Special Exposure Cohort. The Board notes that
although NIOSH found that they were unable to completely
reconstruct radiation doses for these employees, NIOSH believes that
they are able to reconstruct components of the internal dose (uranium
doses from 1960 on) and occupational medical X-ray doses.

This recommendation is based on the following factors:

© People working at the NUMEC facility during this time period

were involved in a number of radiological operations for the
AEC.

e The NIOSH review of the available monitoring data as well as the
available source term and other information found that they
lacked adequate information necessary to conduct accurate
individual internal


The Honorable Michael O. Leavitt October 26, 2007

e dose reconstructions for radionuclides other than uranium (only
feasible after 1960) and for external exposures other than medical
x-rays.

e NIOSH determined that health may have been endangered for

these NUMEC workers during the time period in question. The
Board concurs with this determination.

Enclosed is supporting documentation from the recent Advisory Board Meeting held in
Naperville, Illinois where this class of the special exposure cohort was discussed. If any of
these items are unavailable at this time, they will follow shortly.

Sincerely,

Paul L. Ziemer, Ph.D.
Chairman

Enc.
(December 2, 1924.)

#### JOHN MARTENS and ADELINE MARTENS, Respondents, v. A. E. EHLE and THEODORE H. EHLE, Defendants, and MRS. IRA POTTENGER, Appellant.

[230 Pac. 1115.]

APPEAL from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, for Valley County.

Action to quiet title. Judgment for plaintiffs.

*Affirmed.*

S. T. Schreiber, for Appellant.

R. B. Ayers, for Respondents.

McCARTHY, C. J.

On June 14, 1920, respondents brought an action against defendants and appellant in the district court for Valley county to quiet title to certain real estate. On September 13, 1920, appellant filed an answer and cross-complaint. After trial, the district court made its findings in favor of respondents and on April 18, 1922, entered a decree quieting their title in the premises as against defendants and appellant. On May 3, 1922, appellant perfected this appeal from that judgment. A transcript on appeal was filed in this court, June 25, 1923. On October 14, 1924, the case came on for hearing, no briefs having been filed. Appellant was not represented in person or by counsel on the hearing. Respondents appeared by counsel. Thereupon the case was taken under advisement on the record. Thereafter appellant’s counsel filed a motion asking leave to submit a brief or at least a written assignment of error. In view of the fact that the appeal was perfected two and one-half years ago, that the transcript has been on file in this court about sixteen months, and that the . affidavit in support of the motion does not show any excuse for the failure to file a brief, we conclude that there is no satisfactory reason for adding to the delay which has *797already occurred in the prosecution of this appeal, and that the motion should be denied. Under Rule 48 an affirmance of the judgment is in order. However, we have examined the assignments of error which counsel tendered with his motion and an examination of the record convinces us that they are not well taken.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs to respondents.

Dunn and "Win. É. Lee, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 32.1

          CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL
             OFFICER 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 Amistar Corporation ("the Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I Stuart C.
Baker Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
19 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

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

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

Dated:  November 10, 2004               By: /s/ Stuart C. Baker
                                            --------------------------
                                        Name: Stuart C. Baker
                                        Title: President


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Amistar Corporation ("the Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I Gregory D.
Leiser Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 19 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to the best of my knowledge:

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

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


Dated:  November 10, 2004               By: /s/ Gregory D. Leiser
                                            --------------------------
                                        Name: Gregory D. Leiser
                                        Title: Chief Financial Officer
(May 2, 1924.)

#### J. T. WITTY, Appellant, v. LEONARD WELLS and MAHALEY PAUL, Respondents.

[225 Pac. 1020.]

Appeal — Pinal Judgment — Jurisdiction—Dismissal.

Where an appeal is sought to be taken from a purported judgment and the same does not constitute a final judgment or order from which an appeal can be taken, within the meaning of C. S., sec. 7152, the appeal will be dismissed.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District, for Jerome County. Hon. Wm. A. Babcock, Judge.

Action for injunction. No judgment entered.

*Appeal dismissed.*

E. D. Reynolds, for Appellant.

A. B. Barclay, for Respondents.

Counsel cite no authorities on point decided.

BUDGE, J.

By notice of appeal herein, appellant seeks to appeal from “the judgment entered on the 29th day of April, 1922, in favor of defendants in said action and against said plaintiff.” No such judgment appears in the record, but we find a so-called “order” made on April 29, 1922, which is as follows:

> “ORDER.

> .“The above entitled matter came on for hearing on the 24th day of April, 1922, it being a day of the regular April, 1922, term of this Court. On paragraph Four (4) of the stipulation of counsel, filed in this action, after argument of counsel, the court took the matter under consideration and being advised in the premises finds that the de*21fendants are entitled to such right of way across plaintiff’s premises as designated on the plat herein filed, as may be necessary in order for their use and that in building and constructing said service ditch, said defendants may use from the premises of plaintiff, as aforesaid, sufficient dirt to construct and maintain the dyke required in the construction of said ditch. Said construction and maintenance, however, to be performed in a way and manner that will serve defendants’ needs and do the least damage to plaintiff’s premises.

> “Done in open court this 29th day of April, 1922.

> “WM. A. BABCOCK, District Judge.”

We are of the opinion that the foregoing cannot be construed as a final judgment or order from which an appeal can be taken, within the provisions of C. S., sec. 7152.

The appeal should be dismissed, and it is so ordered. Costs are awarded to respondents.

McCarthy, C. J., and William A. Lee and Wm. E. Lee, JJ., and Brinck, District Judge, concur.
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 192

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to increase the Federal

minimum wage.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 19, 1999

Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. DASCHLE, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. SARBANES, Mr.

MOYNIHAN, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. DODD, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. BINGAMAN,

Mr. KERRY of Massachusetts, Mr. HARKIN, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. AKAKA,

Mr. WELLSTONE, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mrs. BOXER, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr.

FEINGOLD, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. TORRICELLI, Mr. REED, and

Mr. SCHUMER) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

A BILL

To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to increase

the Federal minimum wage.

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 ‘‘Fair Minimum Wage

5 Act of 1999’’.
2

•S 192 IS

1 SEC. 2. MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE.

2 (a) WAGE.—Paragraph (1) of section 6(a) of the Fair

3 Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(a)(1)) is

4 amended to read as follows:

5 ‘‘(1) except as otherwise provided in this sec6 tion, not less than—

7 ‘‘(A) $5.65 an hour during the year begin8 ning on September 1, 1999; and

9 ‘‘(B) $6.15 an hour beginning on Septem10 ber 1, 2000;’’.

11 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

12 subsection (a) takes effect on September 1, 1999.

13 SEC. 3. APPLICABILITY OF MINIMUM WAGE TO THE COM14 MONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA

15 ISLANDS.

16 The provisions of section 6 of the Fair Labor Stand17 ards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206) shall apply to the Com18 monwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

Æ