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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE BELOW CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL IINFORMATION
EXTRACTED FROM THE AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ENSTAR INC. AND THE NOTES
THERETO, AND ARE QUALIFIED IN THEIR ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS. 
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             824
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,225
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (440)
<INVENTORY>                                      5,706
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                15,796
<PP&E>                                           3,673
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,931)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  36,015
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,269
<BONDS>                                          1,150
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            33
<OTHER-SE>                                      20,914
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    36,015
<SALES>                                         64,123
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                64,123
<CGS>                                           47,286
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   47,286
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                16,890
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   132
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 204
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (257)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (25)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,072
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,072
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .32
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                               2
<SECURITIES>                                    23,252
<RECEIVABLES>                                      575
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                24,730
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  24,918
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              997
<BONDS>                                         22,237
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,683
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    24,918
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,446
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    27
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,863
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    562
<INCOME-TAX>                                       194
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                368
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (3,587)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        10
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
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.                  

###### Environmental Protection Agency

          - [FRL-9152-1]

# AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

# ACTION:

Notice; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Environmental Protection Agency published a document in the                         **Federal Register**                         of April 19, 2010, concerning announcement of the Board of Trustees for the National Environmental Education Foundation. The document contained misspelled names.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Andrew Burnett, 202-564-0446.

## Correction

                        In the                         **Federal Register**                         of April 19, 2010, in the FR Doc. 2010-8927, on page 20350, in the third column, correct the name and law firm of the appointee to read:                    

The appointee is Manuel Alberto Diaz, a partner in the law firm Lydecker Diaz, L.L.P.

Dated: May 11, 2010.

Lisa P. Jackson,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 2010-11675 Filed 5-14-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
#### OTTO BENNESS, Appellant, v. MIDDLEWEST GRAIN COMPANY, a Corporation, and H. T. Hogy, Respondents.

(173 N. W. 476.)

This case is governed by the decision in Kluver v. Middlewest Grain Co. ante, 210. '

Opinion filed June 21, 1919.

Prom an order of the District Court of Ward County, Leighton> J., plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

IF. *E. Sibbald,*for appellant.

*Fishe & Murphy,*for respondents.

Per Curiam.

. This ease was submitted together with Kluver v. Middlewest Grain Co. ante, 210, 173 N. W. 468. The facts in the instant case are .identical with those in the Kluver Case, and on the authority of the decision rendered in that case, the order appealed from is affirmed.

Grace, J\, concurs in the result.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.2

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

         I, Kenny D. Neal, certify that:

         1.       I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of First McMinnville
Corporation;

         2.       Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

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

         4.       The registrant's other certifying officer and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant
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
         registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
         us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
         which this report is being prepared;

         (b)      Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
         controls and procedures 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 report based on such
         evaluation; and

         (c)      Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's
         internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
         registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected,
         or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal
         control over financial reporting; and

         5.       The registrant's other certifying officer and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the
registrant's board of directors:

         (a)      All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
         design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which
         are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant'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 registrant's
         internal control over financial reporting.

May 14, 2004

/s/    Kenny D. Neal
----------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>   1
                                  EXHIBIT 10.15

                        EXTENSION OF EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


         THIS EXTENSION OF EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT is between William E. Greehey, a
resident of San Antonio, Texas ("Mr. Greehey"), and Valero Energy Corporation, a
Delaware corporation ("Valero"), and is made and delivered effective as of the
30th day of January 2001 ("Effective Date"). Valero and Mr. Greehey are
sometimes referred to herein individually as a "Party," and collectively as the
"Parties."

         WHEREAS, Mr. Greehey and Valero entered into that certain Employment
Agreement dated March 25, 1999 (the "Employment Agreement") (capitalized terms
not defined herein shall have the respective meanings ascribed to such terms in
the Employment Agreement);

         WHEREAS, paragraph two of the Employment Agreement provides that (i)
the Initial Period of the Employment Agreement shall expire on July 31, 2001,
(ii) if Mr. Greehey notifies Valero at least ninety (90) calendar days prior to
the end of the Initial Period of his intention to extend the Employment
Agreement, then the Agreement shall be extended on a month-to-month basis
("Extension Period"), and (iii) that Mr. Greehey may terminate the Employment
Agreement within the Extension Period by giving Valero ninety (90) calendar days
written notice of termination;

         NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree that by signing below, Mr.
Greehey is hereby delivering notice to Valero of his intention to extend the
Employment Agreement, and that the term of the Employment Agreement is hereby
extended beyond the end of the Initial Period on a month-to-month basis in
accordance with paragraph two of the Employment Agreement.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Extension of
Employment Agreement as of the Effective Date.


/s/ William E. Greehey
WILLIAM E. GREEHEY


VALERO ENERGY CORPORATION
By: /s/ Keith D. Booke
Keith D. Booke, Executive Vice President and Chief Administrative Officer
Exhibit 23.1
                                                                    ------------










        CONSENT  OF  INDEPENDENT  REGISTERED  PUBLIC  ACCOUNTING  FIRM



We  consent  to  the  incorporation  by  reference in Registration Statement No.
333-34929  and  333-34867  of  Sentry  Technology Corporation on Form S-8 of our
report  dated  March  16, 2007 appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of
Sentry  Technology  Corporation  for  the  year  ended  December  31,  2006.



/s/  SF  Partnership,  LLP
Chartered  Accountants
Toronto,  Canada




March  16,  2007
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 214 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 214

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the research and 
 development tax credit to research in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico 
               and the possessions of the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 19, 1999

  Mr. Moynihan (for himself and Mr. Schumer) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the research and 
 development tax credit to research in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico 
               and the possessions of the United States.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF RESEARCH CREDIT TO RESEARCH IN PUERTO RICO AND 
              THE POSSESSIONS OF THE UNITED STATES.

    (a) In General.--Section 41(d)(4)(F) of the Internal Revenue Code 
of 1986 (relating to foreign research) is amended by inserting ``, the 
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any possession of the United States'' 
after ``United States''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1998.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 91 (Wednesday, May 12, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 26794]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-11280]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-72,764]


International Paper Company Franklin Pulp & Paper Mill Including 
On-Site Leased Workers From Railserve, Franklin, VA; Amended 
Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment 
Assistance

    In accordance with section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended 
(``Act''), 19 U.S.C. 2273, the Department of Labor issued a 
Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance 
on December 17th, 2009, applicable to workers of International Paper 
Company, Franklin Pulp & Paper Mill, Franklin, Virginia. The notice was 
published in the Federal Register on February 16, 2010 (75 FR 7034).
    At the request of the Company, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged 
in the production of uncoated freesheet paper and coated paperboard.
    The company reports that workers leased from Railserve were 
employed on-site at the Franklin, Virginia location of International 
Paper Company, Franklin Pulp & Paper Mill. The Department has 
determined that these workers were sufficiently under the control of 
the subject firm to be considered leased workers.
    Based on these findings, the Department is amending this 
certification to include workers leased from Railserve working on-site 
at the Franklin, Virginia location of International Paper Company, 
Franklin Pulp & Paper Mill.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-72,764 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    ``All workers International Paper Company, Franklin Pulp & Paper 
Mill, including on-site leased workers from Railserve, Franklin, 
Virginia, who became totally or partially separated from employment 
on or after November 3, 2008, through December 17, 2011, and all 
workers in the group threatened with total or partial separation 
from employment on the date of certification through two years from 
the date of certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment 
assistance under Chapter 2 of Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as 
amended.''

    Signed at Washington, DC this 27th day of April 2010.
Michael W. Jaffe,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010-11280 Filed 5-11-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

v.

ANTHONY LOZANO-SOLIS, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 16-0477 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2004-015263-001

The Honorable Crane McClennen, Judge, Retired

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix

By Gerald R. Grant

Counsel for Respondent

Anthony Lozano-Solis, Florence

Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown, Judge Jennifer B. Campbell and Chief 

Judge Samuel A. Thumma delivered the decision of the Court.

FILED 11-7-2017
STATE v. LOZANO-SOLIS

Decision of the Court

2

PER CURIAM: 

¶1 Petitioner Anthony Lozano-Solis seeks review of the superior 

court's order denying his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant 

to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. This is petitioner's third

successive petition.

¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will 

not disturb a superior court's ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief. 

State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012). It is petitioner's burden to 

show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying the petition 

for post-conviction relief. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, ¶ 1 (App. 2011) 

(petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of discretion on review).

¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior 

court's order denying the petition for post-conviction relief, and the petition 

for review. We find that petitioner has not established an abuse of 

discretion. 

¶4 For the foregoing reasons, we grant review and deny relief.
`[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 199 Referred in House (RFH)]







106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                  S. 199


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 8, 1999

               Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT


 
  For the relief of Alexandre Malofienko, Olga Matsko, and their son, 
                          Vladimir Malofienko.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENCE.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for purposes of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), Alexandre 
Malofienko, Olga Matsko, and their son, Vladimir Malofienko, shall be 
held and considered to have been lawfully admitted to the United States 
for permanent residence as of the date of the enactment of this Act 
upon payment of the required visa fees.

SEC. 2. REDUCTION OF NUMBER OF AVAILABLE VISAS.

  Upon the granting of permanent residence to Alexandre Malofienko, 
Olga Matsko, and their son, Vladimir Malofienko, as provided in section 
1, the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce 
by the appropriate number during the current fiscal year the total 
number of immigrant visas available to natives of the country of the 
aliens' birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)).

            Passed the Senate August 5, 1999.

            Attest:

                                                    GARY SISCO,

                                                             Secretary.`
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 7372

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. FREDRICK EUGENE HUGHES , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Florence

. R. Bryan Harwell, Chief District Judge. ( 4:07

- cr - 00359

- RBH

- 1 ; 4:16

- cv - 02353

- RBH )

Submitted : December 17, 2019 Decided: December 20, 2019

Before KING , FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Fredrick Eugene Hughes , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM : Fredrick Eugene Hughes seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substan tial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s as sessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate b oth that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude tha t Hughes has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED