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



<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THE TABLE BELOW HOLDS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  CONTAINED IN  NETOBJECTS,
INC.  ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE PERIOD ENDED  SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         23,623
<SECURITIES>                                    9,331
<RECEIVABLES>                                   6,064
<ALLOWANCES>                                      908
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               40,505
<PP&E>                                          5,203
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,999)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 42,709
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           6,483
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                          248
<OTHER-SE>                                     35,924
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   42,709
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               22,215
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   6,225
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               33,031
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              1,471
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (26,866)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 0
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (26,910)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (2.40)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.40)



</TABLE>
1 The Honorable JOHN A. JA RVEY, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 09-3642

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * Southern District of Iowa. * Jose Ruiz, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: October 7, 2010 Filed: October 7, 2010

___________ Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Jose Ruiz, Sr., pleaded guilty to a drug o ffense. Pursuant to a plea agreement entered into under Federal Rule of Crimin al Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) that also included an appeal waiver, the district court 1 sentenced Ruiz to 240 months in prison and also imposed a consecutive 60-month sentence b ecause he committed the offense while on supervised release for a prior offense. Ru iz appeals the sentence. His counsel filed a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and moved to withdraw, arguing that we should set aside the appeal waiver and overturn a two-level dangerous-2- weapon enhancement; that Ruiz’s prior counsel was ineffective; and that the district court erred in refusing to recommend that Ru iz be housed with his son, a co-defendant in the case. Ruiz filed a pro se supplemental brief argui ng that sentencing him to more than 240 months in prison breached the plea agreement.
We enforce the appeal waiver and rej ect Ruiz’s challenge to the two-level dangerous weapon enhancement. The record persuades us that th e plea agreement and appeal waiver were entered into knowingl y and voluntarily, and that no miscarriage of justice results from enforcing the waiver. See United States v. Andis , 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003). In addition, the consecutive sentence imposed for Ruiz’s separate violation of supervised release wa s not inconsistent with the plea agreement, which addressed only the later offense. I ndeed, in a separate statement filed along with the plea agreement, Ruiz acknowledged that an additional sentence might result if he committed the drug offense while on probation for a prior offense.

We decline to consider Ruiz’s ineffec tive-assistance claim on direct appeal; it should be raised in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See United States v. McAdory , 501 F.3d 868, 872-73 (8th Cir. 2007). The distri ct court committed no reversible error in declining to recommend that Ruiz be placed at a facility with his son, as the United States Bureau of Prisons designates aninmate’s place of confinement. See18 U.S.C. § 3621(b). We have independently reviewedthe record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, conditioned on counsel informing Ruiz of the procedures for seeking rehearing from this court and petitioning the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.

______________________________
NUMBER 13-11-00574-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

JULIO BARBOSA Appellant,

A/K/A JULIO ORTIZ

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 214th District Court 

of Nueces County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Vela, and Perkes

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Julio Barbosa a/k/a Julio Ortiz attempts to appeal his conviction for 

theft. The trial court has certified that this is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has 

NO right of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2).
2

On September 9, 2011, this Court notified appellant’s counsel of the trial court’s 

certification and ordered counsel to: (1) review the record; (2) determine whether 

appellant has a right to appeal; and (3) forward to this Court, by letter, counsel’s findings 

as to whether appellant has a right to appeal, or, alternatively, advise this Court as to the 

existence of any amended certification.

On October 11, 2011, counsel filed a letter brief with this Court. Counsel’s 

response does not establish that the certification currently on file with this Court is 

incorrect or that appellant otherwise has a right to appeal. 

The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that an appeal must be 

dismissed if the trial court’s certification does not show that the defendant has the right of 

appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); see TEX. R. APP. P. 37.1, 44.3, 44.4. Accordingly, this 

appeal is DISMISSED. 

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the

20th day of October, 2011.
EXHIBIT
      32.1





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**








In
      connection with the Annual Report of Peoples-Sidney Financial Corporation (the
      "Corporation") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended June 30, 2006, as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date of this Certification (the
      "Report"), I, Douglas Stewart, the President and Chief Executive Officer of
      the
      Corporation, 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
      Corporation.














/s/
      Douglas Stewart


Douglas
      Stewart, President and


Chief
      Executive Officer




Date:
      September 28, 2006
The Honorable G. Thomas Eisele, United States District Judge for the Eastern * District of Arkansas, sitting by designation. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 97-3499EM

_____________ Fred P. Crepeau, * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Eastern v. * District of Missouri. * McDonnell Douglas Corporation, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

_____________ Submitted: March 13, 1998

Filed: March 18, 1998

_____________ Before FAGG and ROSS, Circuit Judges, and EISELE, District Judge. *

_____________ PER CURIAM. Fred P. Crepeau appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment t o McDonnell Douglas Corporation on Crepeau's age discrimination claim. Havin g revie wed the record and the parties' briefs, we conclude Crepeau is not entitled t o relief. Even if we assume for the purpose of our review that Crepeau established the elements of a prima facie case, we agree with the district court's analysis that there is no substantial evidence in the record tending to show that McDonnell Douglas-2-

Corporation's articulated reasons for Crepeau's separa tion during a legitimate reduction in force were a pretext for age discrimination. Because t he controlling law is clear, our revi ew satisfies us that an opinion would have no precedential value in this fact

inten sive case. We thus conclude the district court correctly granted summar y judgment, and we affirm without further discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
JUAN RIVERA,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-4363

Opinion filed October 20, 2015.

Petition for Belated Appeal -- Original Jurisdiction.

Juan Rivera, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for belated appeal is denied.

WOLF, WETHERELL, and MARSTILLER, JJ., CONCUR.
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 83 (Friday, April 30, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 22699]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-10147]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 98

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0508; FRL-9143-5]
RIN 2060-AQ15

Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases: Minor Harmonizing 
Changes to the General Provisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Because EPA received comments which could be construed as 
adverse, we are withdrawing the direct final rule to amend the general 
provisions for the Mandatory Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reporting Rule, 
published on March 16, 2010.

DATES: Effective April 30, 2010, EPA withdraws the direct final rule 
published at 75 FR 12451 on March 16, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carole Cook, Climate Change Division, 
Office of Atmospheric Programs (MC-6207J), Environmental Protection 
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone 
number: (202) 343-9263; fax number: (202) 343-2342; e-mail address: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 16, 2010, we published a direct 
final rule (75 FR 12451) and a parallel proposal (75 FR 12489) amending 
the general provisions for the GHG Reporting Rule. These amendments 
were issued as a direct final rule, along with a parallel proposal to 
be used as the basis for final action in the event EPA received any 
adverse comments on the direct final amendments. Because EPA received 
comments which could be construed as adverse, we are withdrawing the 
direct final rule to amend the general provisions for the Mandatory GHG 
Reporting Rule, published on March 16, 2010. We stated in that direct 
final rule that if we received adverse comment by April 15, 2010, the 
direct final rule would not take effect and we would publish a timely 
withdrawal in the Federal Register. We subsequently received comments 
that could be construed as adverse on that direct final rule. We will 
address those comments in a subsequent final action based on the 
parallel proposal published on March 16, 2010 (75 FR 12489). As stated 
in the direct final rule and the parallel proposed rule, we will not 
institute a second comment period on this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 98

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Greenhouse gases, Suppliers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: April 23, 2010.
Gina McCarthy,
Assistant Administrator for Office of Air and Radiation.

0
Accordingly, the amendments to the rule published in the Federal 
Register on March 16, 2010 (75 FR 12451) are withdrawn as of April 30, 
2010.

[FR Doc. 2010-10147 Filed 4-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
No. 3,639.

#### STATE ex rel. BERT RILEY et al., Relators, *v.*DISTRICT COURT et al., Respondents.

Original application for writ of supervisory control to the District Court of the Second Judicial District in and for the County of Silver Bow.

Decided February 23, 1915.

*Mr. Peter Breen,*for Relators.

PER CURIAM.

Relators’ application for writ of supervisory control herein, this day presented is by the court, after due consideration, denied.
No. 1,743.

#### STATE ex rel. PORTER, Appellant, *v.*WESTERN RANCHES, Limited, Respondent.

*Appeal from District*Court, *Custer County■; C. H.*Loud, *Judge.*

*564Decided October 6, 1903.

*Mr. J. H.*Johnston, and *Mr. James*Donovan, for Appellant.

*Mr. M. S.*Gunn, and *Mr. Sydney*Sanner, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

Tbe appeal herein is hereby dismissed, each party to bear its own costs, in accordance' with the stipulation on file.
No. 3,188.

#### STATE ex rel. W. D. TIPTON, Relator, *v.*DISTRICT COURT OF THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT et al., Respondents.

*Messrs. Galen & Mettler,*for Relator.

*Messrs. Downing & Church,*and *Messrs. Cooper & Stephenson,*for Respondents.

Application for writ of *hateas corpus*and writ of *certiorari*in support thereof. After filing of return and answer, the matter was argued to the court by counsel for relator and cause submitted for judgment and decision. Subsequently counsel for the respective parties having entered into a stipulation to dismiss proceedings, it is hereby ordered that they be dismissed in accordance therewith.
<PAGE>
 
EXHIBIT 11

Computation of Earnings per Share
(dollars in thousands, except shares and per share data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                             For the Nine Months     For the Three Months
                              ended September 30      ended September 30
 
                               1996        1995        1996        1995
<S>                          <C>        <C>         <C>         <C>
PRIMARY:
 
Average shares outstanding  3,684,104   3,684,104   3,684,104   3,684,104
 
Impact of Treasury Shares      19,506      16,408      22,835      16,016
                            ---------   ---------   ---------   ---------
Total                       3,664,598   3,667,696   3,661,269   3,668,088
                            =========   =========   =========   =========
 
Net Income                     $4,759     $ 3,605     $ 1,743     $ 1,201
                            =========   =========   =========   =========

Preferred Stock Dividends        $852          $0        $360          $0
                            =========   =========   =========   =========

Earnings Per Share
Applicable to Common Stock      $1.07        $.98        $.38        $.33
                            =========   =========   =========   =========
</TABLE>
Exhibit
4.25

     

    [Translation
of Chinese Original]

     

    Power
of Attorney

     

    
      
        	
                Principal:

              	
                  

              	
                Junming
      Wu

              	
                  

              	
                Identification
      Card No.:

              	
                  

              	
                110108197910135427

              
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
      	 
      	
                Address:  2-8-804,
      Quarters of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Guanghui Nanli, Chaoyang
      District, Beijing

              
	 
      	 
      	 
      	 
      	 
      	 
      	 
      
	
                Attorney-in-Fact:

              	  	
                Jianhua
      Zhu

              	 
      	
                Identification
      Card No.:

              	 
      	
                110108196907128918

              


      

    

     

    Scope of
Authorization:

     

    Junming
Wu, the Principal, hereby irrecoverably authorizes Jianhua Zhu as his
Attorney-in-Fact to exercise within the term of this Power of Attorney the
following rights:

     

    Jianhua
Zhu is authorized as the Attorney-in-Fact of Junming Wu to exercise all voting
rights enjoyed by the latter in accordance with applicable laws and the Articles
of Association in the general meeting of shareholders of Beijing Novel-Super
Digital TV Technology Co., Ltd. (“DTV Company”), including but not limited to
sale or transfer all or any shares held by Junming Wu in DTV Company, and
nomination and appointment of directors of the DTV Company as the authorized
Attorney-in-Fact of Junming Wu in the general meeting of shareholders of DTV
Company by voting.

     

    The said
authorization and entrust are conditioned on that Jianhua Zhu is a director of
Beijing Super TV Co., Ltd. (“WFOE”) and WFOE agrees to such authorization and
entrust. Once Jianhua Zhu is no longer a director of WFOE, the said entrust and
authorization will be terminated automatically; by then, Junming Wu will
appoint/authorize the person who succeeds as a director of WFOE to exercise all
the voting rights enjoyed by Junming Wu in the general meeting of shareholders
of DTV Company.  Any legal liability arising from all and any
authorized activity carried out by the authorized Attorney-in-Fact within the
scope of authorization shall be assumed by Junming Wu.

     

    The term
of this Power of Attorney is 10 years starting from the date this Power of
Attorney is executed, unless the Business Operating Agreement jointly executed
by DTV Company, WFOE, Novel-Tongfang Information Engineering Co., Ltd. and
Junming Wu, and its supplemental agreements thereto are terminated for
whatsoever reason. If the Business Operating Agreement is extended for a certain
period, this Power of Attorney shall be extended for the same period. All and
any issues in connection with this Power of Attorney shall be governed by
Chinese laws. This Power of Attorney is written in Chinese.

     

    Principal:
/s/ Junming Wu

     

    June 20,
2008
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       2,975,142
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,720,694
<ALLOWANCES>                                 2,865,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,086,609
<PP&E>                                      13,046,758
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,381,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              64,591,672
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,749,585
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       102,285
<OTHER-SE>                                  41,863,234
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                64,591,672
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            68,619,379
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            40,808,559
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,545,340
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,490,270
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,355,637
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,134,633
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                263,796
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,870,837
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .22


</TABLE>
(March 5, 1908.)

#### FARMERS’ CO-OPERATIVE DITCH COMPANY, a Corporation, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RIVERSIDE IRRIGATION DISTRICT, LTD., Defendant and Appellant; SIEBENBERG CO-OPERATIVE DITCH COMPANY et al., Respondents.

[94 Pac. 765.]

APPEAL from the District Court of the Third Judicial District for the County of Ada. Hon. George H. Stewart, Judge.

Action by the plaintiff to have the rights and priorities of the appropriators of water from the Boise river determined and agreed. Cause tried and decree entered for the several claimants. Defendant, the Biverside Irrigation District, appealed from the judgment.

*Affirmed.*

Bice & Thompson, for Appellant.

J. C. Bice, Frank Martin, F. J. Smith, Silas Moody, Karl Paine, Walter Griffiths, Smith & Seatterday, S. H. Hays, Ira E. Barber, H. E. Wallace, W. A. Stone and J. L. Niday, for Bespondents.

PEB CUBIAM.

This appeal by the Biverside Irrigation District is taken in the same case and from the judgment that has been considered in *Farmers’ Co-operative Ditch Company v. Riverside Irrigation District et al.,*Respondents, and *Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District,*Appellant, just decided by this court, *ante,*p. 450, 94 Pac. 761. The same questions are involved in this appeal as on that, and upon the authority of that case the judgment from which this appeal is taken will be affirmed. Costs in favor of respondents.