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


<ARTICLE>                                            9
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         9,094
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               6,058
<TRADING-ASSETS>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    19,559
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         16,180
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           15,828
<LOANS>                                        117,894
<ALLOWANCE>                                    1,369
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 173,331
<DEPOSITS>                                     152,607
<SHORT-TERM>                                   0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            1,499
<LONG-TERM>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       19,463
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 173,331
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                2,837
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              677
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               3,514
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             1,355
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1,355
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          2,159
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                1,349
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1,108
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     1,108
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   697
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.35
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                 0.088
<LOANS-NON>                                    240
<LOANS-PAST>                                   945
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               49
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                1,185
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               1,246
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  35
<RECOVERIES>                                   158
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              1,369
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           1,369
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                            0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        0
        

</TABLE>
|   | (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                for the periods reflected therein. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                  September 19, 2007 |   |                       /s/ Stuart Hettleman |
|-------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------|
|                                      |   | Stuart                  Hettleman                         |
|                                      |   | Chief                  Executive Officer                  |
|                                      |   |                                                      |
|                                      |   |                       /s/ Philip J. Dubato |
|                                      |   | Philip                  J. Dubato                         |
|                                      |   | Chief                  Financial Officer                  |

----
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                            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 Quarterly Report of XETA Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended April 30, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Robert B. Wagner,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 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 results of
                  operations of the Company.

                                               /s/  Robert B. Wagner
                                          ---------------------------------
                                          Robert B. Wagner
                                          Chief Financial Officer
                                          June 11, 2003
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.                  

###### Department of Energy

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Amy Bodette, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC 20585,                         *telephone:*                         202-586-6210.                    

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 12, 2010.

Carol A. Matthews,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 2010-11723 Filed 5-14-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 04-3434

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Western * District of Missouri. Joshua M. Tilson, * * [PUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: October 21, 2004 Filed: July 15, 2005

___________ Before MELLOY, McMILLIAN and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ MELLOY, Circuit Judge. Joshua M. Tilson entered a guilty plea to unlawful transport of firearms and was sentenced to 180 months in prison. The judgment was entered on July 8, 2004, and his deadline to file a notice of appeal was due July 22, 2004. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A); 26(a)(2). Defendant filed his motion to extend time to file notice of appeal on August 13, 2004. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A)(ii) (allowing the district1 The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., United States District Court Judge for the Western District of Missouri. -2- court 1 to extend the time to file a notice of appeal if the petitioner shows “excusable neglect or good cause”). The district court denied the motion. We review a denial of a motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal for an abuse of discretion. Gibbons v. United States , 317 F.3d 852, 853-54 (8th Cir. 2003). We find there was no abuse of discretion below because Tilson failed to show excusable neglect or good cause for his filing delay. Further, even if we were to reach the merits of his appeal, Tilson would not be entitled to relief. Tilson seeks to appeal his sentence based on supposed judicial fact-finding in violation of Blakely v. Washington , 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). Tilson’s argument is that the district court should not have considered Tilson’s three prior violent felonies in calculating his sentence. However, Blakely does not apply to the fact of a prior conviction. 124 S. Ct. at 2536. The judgment of the district court is therefore affirmed.

______________________________
II

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2024

To amend title 28, United States Code, to provide for an additional place

of holding court in the District of Oregon.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 2, 2000

Mr. SMITH of Oregon (for himself and Mr. WYDEN) introduced the following

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 28, United States Code, to provide for an

additional place of holding court in the District of Oregon.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. ADDITIONAL PLACE OF HOLDING COURT IN

4 THE DISTRICT OF OREGON.

5 Section 117 of title 28, United States Code, is

6 amended by striking ‘‘Pendleton and Portland’’ and in7 serting ‘‘Pendleton, Portland, and Springfield’’.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          14,762
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           1,032
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                   129
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     81,122
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          11,716
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            11,296
<LOANS>                                        440,321
<ALLOWANCE>                                      3,820
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 570,347
<DEPOSITS>                                     478,744
<SHORT-TERM>                                    34,227
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,940
<LONG-TERM>                                      7,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           17,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        31,436
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 570,347
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  8,692
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,523
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    68
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                10,283
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               4,348
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,295
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            4,988
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       65
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  4,076
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,425
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,425
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       901
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .21
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.77
<LOANS-NON>                                        996
<LOANS-PAST>                                       381
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  1,377
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 3,908
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      159
<RECOVERIES>                                         6
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                3,820
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             3,820
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2054 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2054

                   For the relief of Sandra J. Pilot.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 10, 2000

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                   For the relief of Sandra J. Pilot.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR SANDRA J. PILOT.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of section 
201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Sandra J. Pilot shall be 
eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status 
to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon 
filing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under section 
204 of such Act or for adjustment of status to lawful permanent 
resident.
    (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Sandra J. Pilot enters the United 
States before the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), she 
shall be considered to have entered and remained lawfully and shall, if 
otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status under section 
245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date of enactment 
of this Act.
    (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) 
and (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status is filed 
with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of enactment of 
this Act.
    (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting of an 
immigrant visa or permanent residence to Sandra J. Pilot, the Secretary 
of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by one, during the 
current or next following fiscal year, the total number of immigrant 
visas that are made available to natives of the country of the alien's 
birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act or, 
if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas that are made 
available to natives of the country of the alien's birth under section 
202(e) of such Act.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 94 (Monday, May 17, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27555-27556]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-11667]


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

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE U.S.

[Public Notice 2010-0009]


Agency Information Collection Activities: Final Collection; 
Comment Request

AGENCY: Export-Import Bank of the U.S.

ACTION: Submission for OMB review and comments request.

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

    Form Title: Application for Issuing Bank Credit Limit (IBCL) Under 
Bank Letter of Credit Policy.
SUMMARY: The Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank), as a 
part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent 
burden, invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to 
comment on the proposed information collection, as required by the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
    The Application for Issuing Bank Credit Limit (IBCL) Under Bank 
Letter of Credit Policy will be used by entities involved in the export 
of US goods and services.
    We have made the following changes to this application:
    a. Added the following questions:
    1. How many new FTEs in the U.S. do you export to hire this year to 
help obtain and fulfill your export sales covered by this letter of 
credit?
    2. How many existing FTEs in the U.S. do you currently have on 
staff to obtain and fulfill your export sales covered by this letter of 
credit?

[[Page 27556]]

    These two questions have been added in order to better assess the 
impact export financing has on U.S. employment. It is generally 
understood that assisting U.S. exports results in improved U.S. 
employment; the information from these questions will be used to 
quantify the expected benefit from Ex-Im Bank's support.
    Our customers will be able to submit this form on paper or 
electronically. The information collected will provide information 
needed to determine compliance and creditworthiness for transaction 
requests submitted to the Export Import Bank under its long term 
guarantee and direct loan programs.

DATES: Comments should be received on or before July 16, 2010 to be 
assured of consideration.

ADDRESSES: Comments maybe submitted electronically on http://www.regulations.gov or by mail to Michele Kuester, Export Import Bank 
of the United States, 811 Vermont Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20571.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Titles and Form Number: EIB 92-36 Application for Issuing Bank 
Credit Limit (IBCL) under Bank Letter of Credit Policy.
    OMB Number: 3048-0016.
    Type of Review: Regular.
    Need and Use: The information collected will provide information 
needed to determine compliance and creditworthiness for transaction 
requests submitted to the Export Import Bank under its long term 
guarantee and direct loan programs.

Sharon A. Whitt,
Agency Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010-11667 Filed 5-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6690-01-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0665

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

SCOTT ALAN LEHRKAMP,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including July 5, 2023, within which to prepare, file, and 

serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 30 2023

05/30/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0665
1 We construe pro sepleadings liberally. Ledbetter v. City of Topeka, Kan., 318

F.3d 1183, 1187 (10th Cir. 2003). 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### June 21, 2005 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT
GREGORY LYNN GALES, Petitioner - Appellant,
v. LOUIS BRUCE, Warden; PHILL KLINE, Attorney General of the State of Kansas, Respondents - Appellees. No. 04-3414 (D. Kansas) (D.Ct. No. 04-CV-3300-SAC)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

AND DISMISSING APPEAL
Before KELLY , O’BRIEN , and TYMKOVICH , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). T he case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Petitioner-Appellant Gregory Lynn Gales, a state pr isoner appearing pro
se , 1 seeks a certificate of appealability ("COA") allow ing him to appeal the-2-

district court's order denying his petition for wri t of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Because we conclude Gales has not e xhausted his state court remedies, we deny a COA and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1); O’Sullivan v. Boerckel , 526 U.S. 838, 844-45 (1999). The parties are familiar with the facts and we nee d not restate them here. On appeal, Gales reasserts the claims he presented below, specifically that his Fourteenth Amendment Due Process rights were violat ed in his state court criminal proceedings as they pertained to his right to a speedy trial, the admissibility of evidence, the lack of a probable c ause hearing and the use of a defective complaint and affidavits. Gales acknowle dged to the district court that the issues raised in his habeas petition were not r aised in his direct appeal, nor did he pursue any state post-conviction relief under K AN . S TAT . ANN . § 60-1507. The district court dismissed Gales’ habeas petition wit hout prejudice for failure to exhaust his state court remedies. After careful consideration of the materials submit ted by Gales against a backdrop of the state court record, the district co urt’s conclusions are not reasonably debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). In this appeal, Gales does not allege that he has exha usted his state court remedies, but rather argues the district court erred because it “has no jurisdiction to judge what arises out of [the] direct appeal process.” ( R., Application for COA at 3.)-3-

Gales misapprehends 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). For substantially the same reasons set forth by the district court, we DENY Gales' request for a COA and DISMISS the appeal. Entered by the Court: Terrence L. O’Brien United States Circuit Judge
#### Elizabeth M. Nicholson, as Administratrix of William S. Nicholson, Deceased, Respondent, v. The Town of Stillwater, Appellant.

Judgment and order reversed and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide event, the court holding that the judgment is unauthorized both as matter of law and as matter of fact.

All concurred, except Betts, J., dissenting.