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

<ARTICLE> 9
<RESTATED> 
<CIK> 0001010476
<NAME> POTTERS FINANCIAL CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           4,376
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                              51
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                   158
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     10,878
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          31,913
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            31,576
<LOANS>                                         65,080
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,630
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 114,172
<DEPOSITS>                                      97,283
<SHORT-TERM>                                     3,830
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,228
<LONG-TERM>                                      1,255
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,880
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,696
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 114,172
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  4,534
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                3,491
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   181
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 8,206
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               4,189
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,529
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            3,677
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      249
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 (1)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  3,688
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      7
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        (61)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (61)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.06)
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.30
<LOANS-NON>                                        627
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 1,101
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    237
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,240
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      538
<RECOVERIES>                                       679
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,630
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             2,630
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          1,245
        

</TABLE>
EX-4.2









Exhibit 4.2




CONSENT OF GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP




June 15, 2009



We hereby consent to the references to our name contained in the heading “Legal Matters” in the
take-over bid circular included in the Registration Statement on Form F-8 dated the date hereof
relating to the registration of common shares of Silvercorp Metals Inc.




Sincerely,




/s/ GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP




Greenberg Traurig LLP
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Fedders Corporation, a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-Q for the three months ending June 30,
2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I,
Michael Giordano, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), 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 results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Michael Giordano
---------------------------------------
Michael Giordano
Chief Financial Officer

Date: August 9, 2004

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Fedders Corporation and will be retained by Fedders Corporation and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2531 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2531

          To suspend temporarily the duty on Pigment Red 255.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 10, 2000

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
          To suspend temporarily the duty on Pigment Red 255.

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

SECTION 1. PIGMENT RED 255.

    (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:

      

``    9902.32.28    Pigment Red 255   Free              No change         No change         On or before 12/
                     (CAS No. 54660-                                                         31/2003          ''
                     00-3) (provided                                                                           .
                     for in
                     subheading
                     3204.17.6085)..

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



NETSMART TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
EXHIBIT 11.1 - CALCULATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                          Years ended December 31,
                                                  1999             1998            1997
                                                  ----             ----            ----
<S>                                          <C>             <C>              <C>

Average shares outstanding                       2,921,254      2,779,655         2,386,953
 Dilutive effect of stock options
  and warrants computed by use
  of treasury stock method                         595,063         85,338                 0

Computation of Earnings Per
  Share=Net Income/Average
  common and common share
  equivalent shares                             $1,824,769  (1)$  123,649       $(3,507,125)
outstanding                                      3,516,317      2,864,993         2,386,953
                                                 ---------      ---------         ---------

Earnings Per Share                              $      .52     $      .04       $     (1.47)




--------
(1)After dividends on Series D Preferred Stock in the amount of $72,600
</TABLE>
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

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

### APR 2 2001 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

PATRICK WESLEY MACCORMACK,

Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 00-3349
v. (D.C. No. 00-CV-2003-CM) D. L. SMITH, doing business as Smith, Brown & Jones, (D. Kan.)

Defendant - Appellee.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before SEYMOUR , McKAY , and BRORBY , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and the appellate record , this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would notmaterially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without ora l argument. This appeal arises from a breach of contract action . The district court dismissed Plaintiff/Appellant’s complaint for lack of federal jurisdiction. On-2-

appeal, Appellant’s original pro se brief was deeme d deficient because it did not contain a certificate of service. After filing a c orrected brief, Appellant filed a memorandum and motion requesting the court affirm t he appeal and grant summary judgment. The clerk denied the motion purs uant to 10th Cir. R. 27.2(A)(1) and on the same day Appellee filed a mem orandum objecting to Appellant’s motion. A request for attorney fees is contained in Appellee’s memorandum. Appellant submitted a response, which includes a motion for affirmative relief pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 27(a )(3)(B). Although Appellee does not specify a statutory basi s for the award of fees, we retain authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 to awardcosts and fees when a party “multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonabl y and vexatiously.” The affirmative relief Appellant requests is that we di smiss Appellee’s previous and future motions on the grounds that an entry of appe arance was not filed for Appellee’s counsel. Having reviewed the record, we decline to exercise our authority on either request. Appellee’s motion for attorney fees and Appellant’s motion for affirmative relief are DENIED. Entered for the Court
Monroe G. McKay Circuit Judge
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. Section 1350

AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO

SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of XETA Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the fiscal quarter ended January 31, 2009, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Robert B. Wagner, ChiefFinancial 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)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  Theinformation 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    |
| ** ** | **February 27, 2009** |

 

----
# The United States Code 

**

----

The United States Code is a compilation of most public laws currently in force, organized by subject matter. When a law has been amended by another law, the U.S. Code reflects this change.  The U.S. Code collates the original law with subsequent amendments, and it deletes language that has later been repealed or superseded. 

The U.S. Code is organized by subject area into 54 titles. Titles are further broken down by chapter and section. Citations to the U.S. Code look like this: 42 U.S.C. 1382 or 42 § 1382. This means the law appears in title 42, section 1382 of the Code. 

There are several ways available to determine where a law is codified–that is, where the law appears in the U.S. Code.   A law may be codified in more than one title of the Code, and a law is generally codified in several sections.

Subject Access.  Although the U.S. Code is divided into 54 titles by broad subject area (such as Public Health and Welfare or Education), it is much easier to use the Code’s multi-volume general indexes.  The indexes are detailed and useful.

Popular Name Access.  Another way to determine where a law has been codified is by looking it up by its popular name (for instance, Balanced Budget Act of 1997 or Civil Rights Act of 1964).  Popular name tables can be found in the following publications: U.S. Code, Shepard’s Acts and Cases by Popular Names, the U.S. Code Annotated Popular Name Table, U.S. Code Service, and U.S. Code Congressional and Administrative News.  These name tables show where that law appears in the Code.

Public Law Number Access.  When a public law is printed, it generally contains cross-references to where particular sections of that law are codified.  The cross-references appear in the margins of the public law.  In addition, the U.S. Code contains a table that lists all public law numbers in chronological order and shows where each section of the law is codified.

|   |
|--------|

        -  Bills, Acts, & Laws 
        -  Nominations 
        -  Treaties 
        -  Votes 
        -  Floor Proceedings 
        -  Rules & Procedure 
        -  Landmark Legislation 
        -  Sessions of Congress 
        -  Senate Archives 
        -  Public Disclosure 

### Find bills 

You can access legislative information, by bill number or key words, from the Congress.gov website.  Information from the present back to the 93rd Congress (1973) is available on Congress.gov.

### Senate Historical Office 

Historical information provided by the Senate Historical Office.

### Days in Session 

These calendars (Congress.gov)  list the days the Senate met for each session of Congress.

Visit the "Sessions of Congress"  web page to find out more about this topic.
Order issued October30, 2012 

In The 

(Court of Apprats 

iTiif1i Di5trirt ni rxa,s atDaltaz 

No. 05-10-00342-CV 

AMERICAN EUROCOPTER CORPORATION, Appellant 

V. 

CJ SYSTEMS AVIATION GROUP, Appellee 

ORDER 

Appellee's motion for extension of time to file its response to appellant's motion for 

rehearing is GRANTED and the time for appellee to file its response is extended to November 

20, 2012. 

LANA YERS ci 

JUSTICE
(May 18, 1897.)

#### BUCKINGHAM & HECHT v. REID.

[48 Pac. 1069.]

Laches — Rules of Court — Piling Teansckipt. — Tlxe filing of a typewritten copy of a transcript in a civil case, without complying with the provisions of paragraph 10 of rule 27 of this court, by depositing with the clerk funds sufficient to pay the expenses of printing the same or making arrangements with the clerk therefor, will not avail.

(Syllabus by the court.)

APPEAL from District Court, Nez Perces County.

Burleigh & Green, for Appellant,

file no brief on point de•cided.

James E. Babb, for Respondents.

No brief on file on the point decided.

HUSTON, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment by default. Motion to dismiss appeal. Judgment was rendered January 17, 1896. Notice of appeal served and filed September 8, 1896. Undertaking on appeal filed September 12, 1896. On *313November 11, 1896, a typewritten transcript was filed with the clerk of this court, but no funds were deposited with the clerk,, nor any arrangement made for procuring the printing of such transcript. On April 6, 1897, a printed transcript was filed, with the clerk of this court, but the same was not authenticated in any way. No order was applied for, or granted, extending the time for filing transcript. By paragraph 1, rule 27, of' this court (32 Pac. x), all transcripts on appeal hereto in civil cases must be printed. Paragraph 8 of said rule 27 (32 Pac. xi) provides that, “in all cases where an appeal is perfected or a writ of error issued, transcripts of the record (showing the date of filing the undertaking on appeal) must be served upon the adverse party and filed in this court within sixty days after the appeal is perfected or the writ of error issued, and the same must be certified to be correct by the attorneys of the respective parties or by the clerk of the court from which the appeal is taken.” This time may be enlarged by the court, or a justice thereof, upon good cause shown, or by stipulation of the parties filed with the clerk, but such extension shall not exceed thirty days: Bule 13, par. 1 (32 Pac. viii). The filing of a typewritten copy of a transcript, unless the provisions of paragraph 10 of rule 27 (32 Pac. xi) are strictly complied with, cannot avail. There does not appear to have been any very strenuous effort on- the part of the appellant in taking the appeal in this case. The judgment was rendered January 17, 1896, and no steps toward taking an appeal were had until September following — nearly eight months. It would seem as though that was ample time in which to prepare a. transcript of only fifteen printed pages. If we tolerate such laches as these, we may well be charged with accentuating the proverbial delays of the law. The motion to dismiss the appeal is allowed, with costs.

Sullivan, C. J., and Quarles, J., concur.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

WILLIAM COON, DOC #H04539, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-2568

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed April 5, 2019.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk

County; Kelly P. Butz, Judge.

David Maldonado, J.D., of The Maldonado 

Law Firm, P.A., Lakeland, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and C. Suzanne Bechard, 

Chief-Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, 

for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

SILBERMAN, SALARIO, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of TLC Vision Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Steven P. Rasche,
Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of
my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities 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.

                                        Date: March 11, 2005


                                        /s/ Steven P. Rasche
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Steven P. Rasche
                                        Chief Financial Officer


                                       109
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1274

WILLIAM SHEROD HENDERSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COUNTY OF HENRICO, VIRGINIA; PATRICIA S. O’BANNON; JAMES B. DONATI; RICHARD W. GLOVER; FRANK J. THORNTON; SHEILA T. CADILL; BOARD OFSUPERVISORS; ROBERT C. THOMPSON, Superintendent for the County of Henrico, Department of Public Works; EDWARD L. PRIESTAS, Assistant Director; JOHN C. PIGNATO, Benefits Officer for the County of Henrico; DAVID E. GOSSETT; VIRGIL HAZELETT, County Manager; HENRICOCOUNTY, Department of Public Works; RISK MANAGEMENT FOR THE COUNTY OF HENRICO, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-98-790-3) Submitted: May 13, 1999 Decided: May 19, 1999Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.2 William Sherod Henderson, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Paul Rapisarda, Jr., County Attorney, Joseph Thomas Tokarz, II, COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE FOR THE COUNTY OF HENRICO, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: William Sherod Henderson appeals the district court’s order dismissing his employment discrimination action brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 12101-12213 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Henderson v. County of Henrico , No. CA-98-790-3 (E.D. Va. Feb. 18, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32.1

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 FiberTower Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2007 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ravi Potharlanka, Co-President and Chief Operating Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



Dated:
March 17, 2008

| |  | /s/ RAVI POTHARLANKARavi Potharlanka Co-President and Chief Operating Officer
| |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The
foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Report and shall not be considered filed as part of the Report.

---



QuickLinks
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7654

KELVIN WATFORD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

W.P. ROGERS, Regional Director; D.M. VAUGHN,

Warden; E. WILLIS, Treatment Supervisor,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District

Judge. (1:06-cv-00104-GBL)

Submitted: December 14, 2006 Decided: December 22, 2006

Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kelvin Watford, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Kelvin Watford appeals the district court’s orders

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint as frivolous and

denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm both

orders for the reasons stated by the district court. See

Watford v. Rogers, No. 1:06-cv-00104-GBL (E.D. Va. entered June 30,

2006; entered Sept. 6, 2006). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED