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

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION FROM CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           4,486
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                              99
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                   450
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     20,666
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          13,973
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            13,991
<LOANS>                                         62,177
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,233
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 104,172
<DEPOSITS>                                      93,714
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                757
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              800
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,901
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 104,172
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  4,098
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,660
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   203
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 5,961
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,423
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,423
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            3,538
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       27
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   7
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  2,704
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,258
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,007
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,007
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     6.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     6.29
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.08
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,211
<LOANS-PAST>                                       196
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    221
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,196
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       61
<RECOVERIES>                                        71
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,233
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,233
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Alton Thomas Davis,

 Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

December 20, 2010 

y1213 

Order 

 

December 20, 2010 

141057 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 141057 

 COA: 296470 

Livingston CC: 87-004894-FC 

JOHN MARK HALCOMB, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 22, 2010 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1



                            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 Annual Report of Hall, Kinion & Associates, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 29, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Brenda C. Rhodes, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. (S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (S) 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

          (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/  Brenda C. Rhodes
                                                 ------------------------------
                                                          Brenda C. Rhodes
                                                      Chief Executive Officer

Date:  March 31, 2003


     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Hall, Kinion & Associates, Inc. and will be retained by Hall,
Kinion & Associates, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 91 (Wednesday, May 12, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26846-26847]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-11322]


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

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


Genomic Medicine Program Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

    The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under Public 
Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that the Genomic Medicine 
Program Advisory Committee will meet on May 21, 2010, at the Westin 
Washington, DC City Center, 1400 M St., NW., Washington, DC. The 
meeting will convene at 9 a.m. and adjourn at 5 p.m. The meeting is 
open to the public.
    The purpose of the Committee is to provide advice and make 
recommendations to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on using genetic 
information to optimize medical care of Veterans and to enhance 
development of tests and treatments for diseases particularly relevant 
to Veterans.
    The Committee will receive program updates from the VA program 
staff; continue to discuss optimal ways for VA to incorporate genomic 
information into its health care program while applying appropriate 
ethical oversight and protecting the privacy of Veterans; presentations 
on genomic medicine delivery within VHA and proof of concept for 
genome-phenome associations using the electronic health record; an 
overview of an upcoming large scale study on the genetics of functional 
disability of mental illness; and a roll-out of the national genomics 
initiative, the Million Veteran Program.
    Public comments will be received at 3:45 p.m. Public comments will 
be limited to five minutes each. Individuals who speak are invited to 
submit 1-2 page summaries of their comments at the time of the meeting 
for inclusion in the official meeting record. Any member of the public 
seeking additional information should contact Dr. Sumitra Muralidhar, 
Designated Federal Officer, at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a1d2d4ccc8d5d3c08fccd4d3c0cdc8c5c9c0d3e1d7c08fc6ced7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="790a0c14100d0b1857140c0b1815101d11180b390f18571e160f">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: May 7, 2010.

[[Page 26847]]

    By Direction of the Secretary.
Vivian Drake,
Acting Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010-11322 Filed 5-11-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 91 (Wednesday, May 12, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 26822]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-11446]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act; Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities 
and Exchange Commission Investor Advisory Committee will hold an Open 
Meeting on Monday, May 17, 2010, in the Multipurpose Room, L-006. The 
meeting will begin at 9 a.m. and will be open to the public, with 
seating on a first-come, first-served basis. Doors will open at 8:30 
a.m. Visitors will be subject to security checks.
    On April 26, 2010, the Commission published notice of the Committee 
meeting (Release No. 33-9120), indicating that the meeting is open to 
the public and inviting the public to submit written comments to the 
Committee. This Sunshine Act notice is being issued because a majority 
of the Commission may attend the meeting.
    The agenda for the meeting includes: (i) Remarks by Dan Ariely, 
behavioral economist, on investor reaction to disclosure; (ii) update 
on recommendations previously adopted by the Committee; (iii) briefing 
on the Investor as Owner Subcommittee's environmental, social, and 
governance disclosure workplan; (iv) update on certain issues involved 
in financial reform legislation; (v) discussion of fiduciary duty, in 
the context of investment advisers and registered broker-dealers, 
including a presentation by SEC staff; (vi) discussion with an expert 
panel on mandatory arbitration; (vii) discussion of money market funds 
and the issue of net asset value (``NAV''), including a presentation by 
SEC staff; (viii) recommendation by Investor Education Subcommittee of 
an investor education campaign; (ix) reports from Subcommittees on 
other activities; and (x) discussion of next steps and closing 
comments.
    For further information, please contact the Office of the Secretary 
at (202) 551-5400.

    Dated: May 10, 2010.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-11446 Filed 5-10-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-41376 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus GORDON DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-97-CR-122-7

- - - - - - - - - - October 23, 1998 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges PER CURIAM: * Gordon Davis appeals his conviction for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute marijuana. His argument that the evidence was insufficient to prove his identity is wholly unsupported by the record and is without merit because identity was not an issue at trial. His argument regarding the district court’s admission of testimony connecting him to a gun is meritless. The admission of evidence tending to show the existence of the conspiracy and the falsity of a defendant’s version of events is not an abuse of discretion. See e.g. ,No. 97-41376 -2- United States v. Walker , 710 F.2d 1062, 1066 (5th Cir. 1983). In addition, such evidence is probably intrinsic to the offenses charged, and therefore admissible. See United States v. Ridlehuber , 11 F.3d 516, 522 (5th Cir. 1993). Similarly meritless is Davis’ argument that the district court erred in questioning a witness who was an informant about payment he received from the government. The questions were aimed at clarifying the informant’s proprietary interest in testifying, and thus were not prejudicial. The district court did not plainly err in questioning the witness. See United States v.
Bermea , 30 F.3d 1539, 1569 (5th Cir. 1994).
AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    3-MOS                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    JUN-30-1997             DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                               352066                 0                                
<SECURITIES>                              0                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                             0                 0
<ALLOWANCES>                              0                 0
<INVENTORY>                               0                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          0                 0
<PP&E>                              9399638                 0
<DEPRECIATION>                      5777892                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      4339252                 0                
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     0                 0
<BONDS>                                   0                 0
<COMMON>                                  0                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0                 0
<PREFERRED>                               0                 0
<OTHER-SE>                                0                 0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        4339252                 0
<SALES>                              839078                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     842470                 0
<CGS>                                     0                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             0                 0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        0                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      246560                 0
<INCOME-TAX>                              0                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  246560                 0   
<DISCONTINUED>                            0                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0                 0
<CHANGES>                                 0                 0
<NET-INCOME>                         246560                 0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                             0                 0
<EPS-DILUTED>                             0                 0
        

</TABLE>
----

| Date:  August 6, 2010 |                                                  |
|---------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|
|                            | /s/ Richard A. Hubbell                           |   |
|                            | Richard A. Hubbell                                    |
|                            | President and Chief Executive Officer                 |
|                            | (Principal Executive Officer)                         |
|                            |                                                  |
| Date:  August 6, 2010 |                                                  |
|                            | /s/ Ben M. Palmer                                |   |
|                            | Ben M. Palmer                                         |
|                            | Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer |
|                            | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)          |
## State of N ew York Su p reme C ou rt, A p p ellate Division Third J u dicial Dep artment Decided and Entered: May 19, 2016 520921

________________________________ DEALY-DOE-EYES MADDUX, Appellant, v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RONALD R. SCHUR JR., Respondent.

________________________________ Calendar Date: April 29, 2016 Before: McCarthy, J.P., Egan Jr., Rose, Lynch and Aarons, JJ.

__________ Dealy-Doe-Eyes Maddux, St. Johnsville, appellant pro se.

__________ Lynch, J. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Aulisi, J.), entered July 18, 2014 in Fulton County, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint. For more than a decade, plaintiff has pursued an ongoing course of litigation seeking to hold defendant liable for his alleged legal malpractice. One such action for legal malpractice proceeded to trial and was dismissed by Supreme Court upon defendant's motion at the close of plaintiff's proof. 1 Thereafter, defendant moved to dismiss this purported legal malpractice action on the ground that, among other things, plaintiff failed to file a summons or summons with notice.

1 This Court affirmed Supreme Court's subsequent orders denying plaintiff's motions to vacate the order of dismissal (Maddux v Schur, 83 AD3d 1156 [2011]; Maddux v Schur, 53 AD3d 738 [2008]).-2- 520921

Supreme Court granted defendant's motion, and plaintiff now appeals. We affirm. "An action is commenced by filing a summons and complaint or summons with notice in accordance with [CPLR 2102]" (CPLR 304 [a]). The failure to file the papers required to commence an action constitutes a nonwaivable, jurisdictional defect (see Matter of Miller v Waters, 51 AD3d 113, 116 [2008]; Sangiacomo v County of Albany, 302 AD2d 769, 771 [2003]), and such a defect is not subject to correction under CPLR 2001 (see Goldenberg v Westchester County Health Care Corp., 16 NY3d 323, 328 [2011]; Fox v City of Utica, 133 AD3d 1229, 1230 [2015]; DeJoy v Ehmann, 114 AD3d 1288, 1289 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 901 [2014]). Here, although plaintiff purchased an index number and filed a complaint, she never filed a summons or summons with notice. Given plaintiff's failure, the purported action was a nullity, and Supreme Court properly dismissed it for want of subject matter jurisdiction (see O'Brien v Contreras, 126 AD3d 958, 958 [2015]; Sangiacomo v County of Albany, 302 AD2d at 772). Moreover, to the extent that the complaint raised claims that were identical to those previously litigated and dismissed after a trial, such claims were barred by principles of res judicata (see Bluff Point Townhouse Owners Assn., Inc. v Kapsokefalos, 129 AD3d 1267, 1267-1268 [2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 910 [2015]; Wasson v Bond, 97 AD3d 1093, 1094 [2012]). Plaintiff's remaining contentions have been examined and found to be without merit. McCarthy, J.P., Egan Jr., Rose and Aarons, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2175 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2175

      To suspend temporarily the duty on 1-fluoro-2-nitro benzene.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 2, 2000

 Mr. Thompson introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To suspend temporarily the duty on 1-fluoro-2-nitro benzene.

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

SECTION 1. TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DUTY.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:
      

``    9902.29.04    1-fluoro-2-nitro  Free              Free              No change         On or before 12/
                     benzene, of a                                                           31/2002          ''
                     kind used for                                                                             .
                     raw material
                     for
                     pharmaceutical
                     intermediate
                     (CAS No. 001493-
                     27-2) (provided
                     for in
                     subheading
                     2904.90.30)....

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 31.2

               CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
         Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

     I, John Ray Rask, certify that:

     (1)  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Omega
Ventures Group, Inc., (the "Company");

     (2)  Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

     (3)  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in
all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and
cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this
quarterly report;

     (4)  The Company's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the Company and have:

     (a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such
     disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
     supervision to ensure that material information relating to the
     Company, including its consolidated subsidiary, is made known to us by
     others within those entities, particularly during the period in which
     this quarterly report is being prepared;
     (b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company's disclosure controls
     and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
     of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period
     covered by this quarterly report based on such evaluation; and
     (c)  Disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the Company's
     internal controls over financial reporting that occurred during the
     Company's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or
     is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company's internal
     controls over financial reporting; and

     (5)  The Company's other certifying officers and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the Company's auditors and the audit committee of the
Company's board of directors (or persons fulfilling the equivalent
function):

     (a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
     design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting
     which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Company's ability
     to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
     (b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
     other employees who have a significant role in the Company's internal
     controls over financial reporting.




Date: November 22, 2004       By: John Ray Rask
                              -------------------------------------------
                              John Ray Rask, Principal Financial Officer