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

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                      14,028,769
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         128,619
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 54,881,822
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      23,317,417
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        23,112,774
<LOANS>                                    183,067,136
<ALLOWANCE>                                  2,068,182
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             290,655,749
<DEPOSITS>                                 259,557,897
<SHORT-TERM>                                 8,474,471
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,176,682
<LONG-TERM>                                  3,565,448
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  2,018,085
<COMMON>                                       251,517
<OTHER-SE>                                  15,611,649
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             290,655,749
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              9,047,119
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            2,362,956
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                67,286
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            11,477,361
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           4,110,632
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           4,373,017
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        7,104,344
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  394,353
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               1,770
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              7,099,702
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,805,353
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   1,339,827
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,339,827
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .45
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.45
<LOANS-NON>                                    147,145
<LOANS-PAST>                                   491,871
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             1,967,326
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  370,368
<RECOVERIES>                                    76,871
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            2,068,182
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            60,364
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                      2,007,818


</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.2
  Certification of Chief Financial Officer
 Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) or 15d-14(a)
 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
 
 
 I, Daniel L. Westrope, certify that:
 
 
 1)  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of State Financial Services Corporation;
 
 2)         B ased 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 (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
 
 5)         T he 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 registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
 
 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 controls over financial reporting
 
 Date: November 12, 2003
 
 
 By /s/ Daniel L. Westrope
 Daniel L. Westrope
 Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5155 

To prohibit the National Endowment for the Humanities to provide funds 

to carry out the Popular Romance Project or any similar project relating 

to love or romance. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 17, 2014 

Mr. SALMON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To prohibit the National Endowment for the Humanities 

to provide funds to carry out the Popular Romance 

Project or any similar project relating to love or romance. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION. 

4 The National Endowment for the Humanities may 

5 not provide funds to carry out the Popular Romance 

6 Project or any similar project relating to love or romance. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
A94A2148.

A94A2149.

#### BALLARD v. WARREN. WARREN v. BALLARD et al.

(474 SE2d 259)

Birdsong, Presiding Judge.

1. When these appeals were before this Court, we held the trial court erred in refusing to admit evidence of insurance payments paid on behalf of the plaintiff, because she and her husband misled the jury by testifying they had to pay their medical bills themselves and they had thus “opened the door” to be impeached by evidence that their bills were paid by insurance. *Ballard v. Warren, 211*Ga. App. 23 (456 SE2d 589).

On certiorari, the Supreme Court combined this case (Case No. S95G1171) with another which it considered of identical import, *Suber v. Luke*(Case No. S95G1212), 266 Ga. 408 (467 SE2d 891). A majority of the Supreme Court held that both cases involved mere *“anxiety over payment of medical bills,”*(emphasis supplied) despite our finding in *Ballard*that the collateral source evidence which proved that plaintiff’s damages were paid by insurance was admissible *solely*because plaintiff and her husband had misled the jury as to the facts.

Because the Supreme Court has characterized the plaintiff’s evidence in this case as showing mere “anxiety” and not as being a false implication that plaintiff paid all her own bills because she had no insurance, we now hold that in this particular case the trial court did not err in refusing to allow defendants to introduce evidence that plaintiff could not have felt such “anxiety” because her medical bills were paid by her own insurance.

2. We must now consider whether the verdict was so excessive as to be inconsistent with the preponderance of the evidence. See *Ballard, 211*Ga. App. at 25. In view of the Supreme Court’s inference that plaintiff’s and her husband’s testimony merely expressed immaterial “anxiety,” we cannot say the jury’s verdict was induced by *358prejudice, bias or corrupt means. Id.

Decided July 24, 1996.

*Baker, Kinsman & Hollis, Norman M. Kinsman,*for Ballard.

*Weiner, Yancey, Dempsey & Diggs, Beryl H. Weiner,*for Warren.

3. As to our ruling in the cross-appeal (Case No. A94A2149), plaintiff did not state in her enumeration of error the grounds on which she contends she is entitled to a new trial. We shall therefore not consider it. See *MOM Corp. v. Chattahoochee Bank,*203 Ga. App. 847, 849 (418 SE2d 74); *Pier 1 Imports v. Chatham County &c.,*199 Ga. App. 294, 296 (404 SE2d 637).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Blackburn and Ruffin, JJ, concur.*
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED**

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

          Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of CX2 Technologies, Inc., a Florida corporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies that:

          To my knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended March 31, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

Dated: September 13, 2010                                                                                                                        

 

 

/s/ Michael Rand

 

 

Michael Rand

 

Chief Executive Officer, and Principal Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 106 (Thursday, June 3, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31424-31425]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-13343]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XW77


Fisheries of the South Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean; 
Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) Steering Committee 
Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of SEDAR Steering Committee Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The SEDAR Steering Committee will meet via conference call to 
discuss assessment projects for 2011. SEE SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

DATES: The SEDAR Steering Committee will meet on Monday, June 21, 2010 
from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m., EDT.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held via conference call. Listening 
stations are available at the following locations: South Atlantic 
Fishery Management Council, 4055 Faber Place Drive <greek-i>201, North 
Charleston, SC 29405; Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2203 
North Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 33607; and Caribbean Fishery 
Management Council, 268 Mu[ntilde]oz Rivera Ave., Suite 1108, San Juan, 
Puerto Rico 00918.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Carmichael, Science and 
Statistics Program Manager, SAFMC, 4055 Faber Place, Suite 201, North 
Charleston, SC 29405; phone (843) 571-4366 or toll free (866) SAFMC-10; 
FAX (843) 769-4520.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The South Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and 
Caribbean

[[Page 31425]]

Fishery Management Councils; in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries, the 
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, and the Gulf States Marine 
Fisheries Commission; implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and 
Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status 
of fish stocks. The SEDAR Steering Committee provides oversight of the 
SEDAR process, establishes assessment priorities, and provides 
coordination of assessment and management activities.
    During this conference call the Steering Committee will discuss 
stocks to be assessed as benchmarks and updates for 2011.

Special Accommodations

    These meetings are physically accessible to people with 
disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other 
auxiliary aids should be directed to the South Atlantic Fishery 
Management Council office at the address listed above at least 5 
business days prior to the meeting.

    Dated: May 28, 2010
Tracey L. Thompson
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-13343 Filed 6-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S
Order entered April 23, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01067-CR

JIMMY DEWAYNE HILL, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F09-53582-W

ORDER

The Court has before it appellant’s April 22, 2015 motion to strike appellee’s brief 

because it has not yet been filed. We will treat this as a motion to prohibit the State from filing a 

brief and, as such, DENY the motion.

We note that the trial court certified that the case involves a plea bargain and appellant 

has no right to appeal. Accordingly, we DIRECT the parties to file, within FIFTEEN DAYS of 

the date of this order, letter briefs of no more than three pages, addressing this Court’s 

jurisdiction over the appeal.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to Jimmy Hill and the Dallas County 

District Attorney’s Office.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
#### CLIFFORD MADRIN v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY.

(Filed 28 September, 1932.)

Appeal and Error L c — Decision on former appeal that evidence was sufficient is conclusive on second appeal when evidence is the same.

Where on a former appeal the Supreme Court has adjudicated that the evidence was sufficient to overrule a motion of nonsuit and on the subsequent trial the evidence is substantially the same as on the first the plaintiff’s exception to the court’s refusal to nonsuit the second action will be overruled.

Appeal by defendant from *Cranmer, J.,*at March Term, 1932, of Pitt.

No error.

*F.*(?. *James & Son for appellant.*

*Julius Brown ancl Harding & Lee for appellee.*

Per Curiam.

This is an action to recover damages for injury to pérson and property suffered by the plaintiff at a railroad crossing. The Norfolk Southern Railroad Company and the Sinclair Refining Company were made parties defendant. The case was first tried in October, 1930, and was dismissed as to both defendants. The plaintiff appealed and this Court affirmed the judgment of nonsuit as to the Sinclair Refining Company and granted a new trial against the Railroad Company, 200 N. C., 784.

The cause again came on for trial at the March Term, 1932, of the Superior Court of Pitt County. The plaintiff alleged that on 11 March, 1928, about ten o’clock in the morning, he was traveling on a public highway in the direction of Farmville and while crossing the railroad track was injured by the negligence of the defendant. The circumstances are set out in the complaint and need not be repeated. The defendant denied negligence and jdeaded the contributory negligence of the plaintiff. The usual issues were submitted to the jury and upon the return of a verdict favorable to the plaintiff he was given a judgment, from which the defendant appealed upon assigned error.

The defendant made the two statutory motions for nonsuit and excepted to the court’s refusal to dismiss the action. This exception is overruled for the reason that the evidence does not differ materially and fundamentally from the evidence introduced on the first trial, the sufficiency of which to bar a nonsuit was adjudicated on the former appeal.

The appellant has several exceptions to the admission of evidence but we do not find reversible error in any one of them.

No error.
Order entered May 9 , 2022

In The 

### Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** No. 05 - 22 - 00316 - CR EX PARTE ROBERT BEVERS On Appeal from the County Criminal Court No. 3 Dallas County, Texas Tr ial Court Cause No. MC20A - 0523 - C O RDER Before the Court is appellant’s May 4, 2022 motion to withdraw the appeal. A motion to withdraw or dismiss an appeal must be sign e d by both counsel and the appellant. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.2(a). Appellant’s motion to withdraw the appeal is signed only by counsel. Accordingly, we will take no action on the motion. We ORDER appellant’s counsel to file, within FOURTEEN DAYS of the date of this order, an amended motion to withdraw or dismiss the appeal signed by both co unsel and appellant.
/s/ ERIN A. NOWELL JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 32.2
 CFO CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADDED BY
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES  OXLEY ACT OF 2002
   (i)
    
    the Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and(ii)
    
    the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.
  /s/Robert Copple

Robert CoppleChief Financial OfficerSubscribed and sworn to
before me this 10th day of March 2010./s/ Carol Waldman

Name: Carol WaldmanTitle: Notary PublicMy commission expires: 06/07/12
#### Samuel Wells, Respondent, v. Leonard *L.*Fancher, Appellant.

— Judgment and order of the County Court of Onondaga county affirmed, . with costs Opinion by

Boardman. J.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>			5
       
	    			             
				  <S>                 <C>   	
      <PERIOD-TYPE>       3-MOS             
      <FISCAL-YEAR-END>               JUN-30-1999
      <PERIOD-START>                  OCT-01-1998
      <PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1998
      <CASH>                               19,224
      <SECURITIES>                              0
      <RECEIVABLES>                         8,169
      <ALLOWANCES>                          (573)
      <INVENTORY>                             387
      <CURRENT-ASSETS>                     33,732
      <PP&E>                                2,095
      <DEPRECIATION>                          331
      <TOTAL-ASSETS>                       40,842
      <CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                14,398
      <BONDS>                                   0
      <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
      <PREFERRED>                               0
      <COMMON>                                  8
      <OTHER-SE>                           52,284
      <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         40,842
      <SALES>                               3,416
      <TOTAL-REVENUES>                      7,248
      <CGS>                                   256
      <TOTAL-COSTS>                         1,428
      <OTHER-EXPENSES>                      6,127
      <LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
      <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       60
      <INCOME-PRETAX>                       (154)
      <INCOME-TAX>                           (43)
      <INCOME-CONTINUING>                       0
      <DISCONTINUED>                            0
      <EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
      <CHANGES>                                 0
      <NET-INCOME>                          (111)
      <EPS-PRIMARY>                         (.01)
      <EPS-DILUTED>                         (.01)
        

</TABLE>
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-4278

_____________________________

LOUISE MARIE LUNING,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Russell Healey, Judge.

October 15, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, ROWE, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Kathleen Stover, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines

of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally

disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and

judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

1

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

JUL 15 1998

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 97-3079

v. (District of Kansas)

KHAMMOUK NAMPHENGSONE,

Defendant - Appellant.

(D.C. No. 94-10122-01) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before PORFILIO, KELLY, and HENRY, Circuit Judges.

Khammouk Namphengsone appeals his conviction and sentence after a

guilty plea. After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has

determined unanimously that oral argument would not assist the determination of

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. We exercise

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and order the case submitted without oral
2

argument.

The government charged Mr. Namphengsone with robbery (a violation of

18 U.S.C. § 1951) and carrying or using a firearm during a robbery during which

a murder was committed ( a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(i)(1)). After Mr. 

Namphengsone pleaded guilty to both counts, the government filed a motion for

downward departure pursuant to § 5K1.1 of the United States Sentencing

Guidelines. The district court granted the motion and sentenced Mr.

Namphengsone to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 240 months on Count 1

and 264 months on Count 2.

In this appeal, Mr. Namphengsone’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Mr. Namphengsone’s attorney states

that the appeal presents no non-frivolous legal questions for review. He declares

that Mr. Namphengsone entered a valid plea of guilty and that Mr.

Namphengsone’s sentence was lawfully imposed.

Upon the filing of the Anders brief, this court afforded Mr. 

Namphengsone an opportunity to respond. No response has been received from

him.

We agree with Mr. Namphengsone’s counsel and the government. The

record establishes that Mr. Namphengsone entered into the guilty plea knowingly

and voluntarily and in compliance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 and that the district
3

court properly determined his sentence. 

Accordingly, we grant the motion to withdraw filed by Mr.

Namphengsone’s counsel and affirm Mr. Namphengsone’s conviction and

sentence. 

 Entered for the Court

Robert H. Henry

Circuit Judge
**EXHIBIT 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

     **18 U.S.C. 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

In connection with the Annual Report of NORTHWEST CHARIOTS INCORPORATED (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert Doolan, Chief Financial 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:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: January 14, 2008

By: ***/s/ Robert Doolan***

Robert Doolan

Chief Financial Officer, principal financial officer and principal accounting officer

----
Case: 19-30088    Doc# 3514    Filed: 08/12/19    Entered: 08/12/19 14:33:00    Page 1 of1