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


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                             577
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,354
<ALLOWANCES>                                       174
<INVENTORY>                                      4,587
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                13,585
<PP&E>                                           7,725
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,783
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  19,811
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,853
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              750
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,745
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    19,811
<SALES>                                          6,743
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,743
<CGS>                                            4,841
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,841
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  94
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (896)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (896)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (896)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        



</TABLE>
Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4788-1    Filed: 11/18/19    Entered: 11/18/19 11:04:36    Page 1of 2

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4788-1    Filed: 11/18/19    Entered: 11/18/19 11:04:36    Page 2of 2
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4151 Filed: 10/07/19 Entered: 10/07/19 13:10:17 Page 1 of

5
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4151 Filed: 10/07/19 Entered: 10/07/19 13:10:17 Page 2 of

5
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4151 Filed: 10/07/19 Entered: 10/07/19 13:10:17 Page 3 of

5
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4151 Filed: 10/07/19 Entered: 10/07/19 13:10:17 Page 4 of

5
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4151 Filed: 10/07/19 Entered: 10/07/19 13:10:17 Page 5 of

5
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 02-1394

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Southern

* District of Iowa.

Gregorio Barberena-Martinez, also * [UNPUBLISHED]

known as Jose Antonio Lopez-Garcia, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: October 18, 2002

 Filed: October 23, 2002

___________

Before McMILLIAN, BOWMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Gregorio Barberena-Martinez (Barberena) pleaded guilty to one count of

conspiring to distribute in excess of 500 grams of a mixture or substance containing

methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(A), 846. In their Federal

Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(e)(1)(C) plea agreement, the parties stipulated to a

sentence of 151 months imprisonment. Under a second plea agreement, Barberena

waived indictment and pleaded guilty to an information charging him with unlawfully

reentering the United States following deportation after a conviction for an

aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2). At a combined
1

The Honorable Harold D. Vietor, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa. 

-2-

sentencing, the district court1 accepted the Rule 11(e)(1)(C) plea agreement and

imposed concurrent sentences of 151 months imprisonment on the drug charge and

41 months imprisonment on the reentry charge, to be followed by concurrent

supervised release terms of 5 years and 2 years respectively. Barberena’s counsel has

moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), which we construe as raising a general challenge to the sentences imposed.

Barberena has filed a pro se supplemental brief in which he argues that he was denied

effective assistance of counsel and that his drug sentence violates Apprendi v. New

Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). We affirm. 

We reject the sentencing arguments because Barberena may not challenge on

appeal the 151-month drug sentence to which he stipulated, see United States v.

Nguyen, 46 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1995), and he provides no basis for challenging

the concurrent 41-month illegal-reentry sentence nor do we see any basis for doing

so. Further, Barberena’s ineffective-assistance claim is not properly brought in this

direct criminal appeal. See United States v. Cain, 134 F.3d 1345, 1352 (8th Cir.

1998). 

Having found no nonfrivolous issues following our independent review of the

record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we affirm, and we

grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. 
-3-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### Frances Schwerdtfeger, Respondent, v. The New York and Baltimore Transportation Line, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed.' Opinion by

Brady, J.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BAKER 

&

HOSTETLER LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

Exhibit A

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3393-1 Filed: 08/06/19 Entered: 08/06/19 17:27:03 Page 1

of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BAKER 

&

HOSTETLER LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

COMMITTEE MEMBERS INCURRING EXPENSES FOR SERVICES RENDERED ON 

BEHALF OF THE TCC FROM JUNE 1, 2019 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2019 

Name Position Total Expenses Incurred

Karen M. Lockhart Chair $197.82 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3393-1 Filed: 08/06/19 Entered: 08/06/19 17:27:03 Page 2

of 2
IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2023 ND 59

Richard Richardson III, Petitioner and Appellant

v.

State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee

No. 20220291

Appeal from the District Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast Central

Judicial District, the Honorable Jason M. McCarthy, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Benjamin C. Pulkrabek, Mandan, ND, for petitioner and appellant.

Andrew C. Eyre, Assistant State’s Attorney, Grand Forks, ND, for respondent 

and appellee.

FILED 

IN THE OFFICE OF THE 

CLERK OF SUPREME COURT 

MARCH 31, 2023 

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
1

Richardson v. State

No. 20220291

Per Curiam.

[¶1] Richard Richardson appeals from an order denying his application for 

post-conviction relief. In 2020, Richardson was found guilty of reckless 

endangerment. Richardson appealed the conviction, arguing the evidence was 

insufficient and that he acted in self-defense. We affirmed the conviction. State 

v. Richardson, 2020 ND 246, ¶ 1, 950 N.W.2d 761. Richardson then petitioned

for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Richardson 

argued he received ineffective assistance of counsel because a witness who 

would have corroborated his self-defense claim did not show up for trial despite 

being subpoenaed. The district court found Richardson failed to show his 

attorney’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. The 

court further found Richardson failed to establish he was prejudiced by his 

attorney’s conduct because he did not show a reasonable probability that the 

results of the case would have been different had the witness testified.

[¶2] We conclude the district court’s findings regarding the second prong, 

whether counsel’s representation caused prejudice, are not clearly erroneous. 

Courts need not address both prongs of the Strickland test if the matter can be 

resolved by addressing only one prong. Rencountre v. State, 2015 ND 62, ¶ 7, 

860 N.W.2d 837 (citing Osier v. State, 2014 ND 41, ¶ 11, 843 N.W.2d 277). The 

court did not clearly err in denying Richardson’s application for post-conviction 

relief, and we summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

[¶3] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.

Daniel J. Crothers

Lisa Fair McEvers

Jerod E. Tufte

Douglas A. Bahr
32(ii)

                            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 Monroe Bancorp (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gordon M. Dyott,
Executive Vice President and 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 operation of
          the Company.




/s/ Gordon M. Dyott
-------------------
Gordon M. Dyott
Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
May 8, 2006


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350 and is not being filed for any other purpose.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         111,201
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,011,770
<ALLOWANCES>                                   183,336
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,427,493
<PP&E>                                      10,393,597
<DEPRECIATION>                               7,465,034
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,372,274
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,303,774
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,275
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,730,744
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,372,274
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,460,823
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,075,128
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,468,823
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               180,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              39,636
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,122,764)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,122,764)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,122,764)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.15)
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 107 (Friday, June 4, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 31816]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-13310]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--INS Global Learning Consortium, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on April 26, 2010, pursuant to Section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), INS Global Learning Consortium, 
Inc. has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney 
General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its 
membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending 
the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to 
actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Accessible 
Portable Item Profile Project, Newton, MA; Fundacao Getulio Vargas, 
Centro Rio de Janeiro, BRAZIL; Kyung Hee Cyber University, Seoul, 
REPUBLIC OF KOREA; and Turning Technologies, Youngstown, OH, have been 
added as parties to this venture. Also, National Association of College 
Stores, Oberlin, OH, has withdrawn as a party to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc. 
intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes 
in membership.
    On April 7, 2000, INS Global Learning Consortium, Inc. filed its 
original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The 
Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register 
pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on September 13, 2000 (65 FR 
55283).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on February 16, 
2010. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on March 24, 2010 (75 FR 14191) .

Patricia A. Brink,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2010-13310 Filed 6-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE M
_ 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 21-0588

JADA KU,

 Plaintiff and Appellant,

 v.

MONTANA HUMAN RIGHTS 

BUREAU,

 Defendant and Appellee.

SECOND ORDER 

OF MEDIATOR APPOINTMENT

J. David Slovak, the mediator previously appointed in this matter, has notified the 

Court that he declines the appointment. Accordingly, Mr. Slovak’s order of mediator 

appointment is hereby rescinded and

IT IS ORDERED THAT J. BRIAN BULGER, whose name appears next on the list

of attorneys desiring appointment as mediators for Money Judgments appeals which is

maintained pursuant to M.R.App.P., 7(4)(e), is hereby appointed to conduct the mediation 

process required by M.R.App.P., 7(5), and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the time periods set forth in M.R.App.P., 7(5)(d) 

shall run from the date of this order of appointment.

A true copy of this order is being mailed to counsel of record for the parties, or to the 

parties individually if not represented by counsel, on the date hereof.

DATED this 16th day of December, 2021.

Bowen Greenwood, Clerk of the Supreme Court

c: Jada Ku, Michele L. Peterson-Cook, J. David Slovak, J. Brian Bulger

12/16/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0588
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7105

IN RE: DAVID M. KISSI,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-05-254) Submitted: December 22, 2005 Decided: December 30, 2005 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. David M. Kissi, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: David M. Kissi petitions for a writ of mandamus. He seeks an order directing a change of venue in the underlying criminal proceeding and an order granting his release from detention. Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. SeeIn re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. , 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Further, mandamus is a drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary circumstances. See Kerr v. United States Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In re Beard , 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. See In re United Steelworkers , 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979). With these criteria in mind, we conclude Kissi is not entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny his petition for writ of mandamus, amended petitions, and supplements. We also deny Kissi’s motions to expedite, for a suppression hearing, and for appointment of counsel. 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. PETITION DENIED
Exhibit 32.2

                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 filing of NewMarket China, Inc.'s (the "Company")
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2007 (the
"Report"), I, Philip J. Rauch, 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/ Philip J. Rauch
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Philip J. Rauch
                                                Chief Financial Officer

Date: August 15, 2007
exv10w3






Exhibit 10.3



Summary description of compensation arrangement with Kenneth V. Handal (excerpt from Proxy
Statement dated July 24, 2009).



Kenneth V. Handal (Former Executive Vice President, Global Risk & Compliance, and Corporate
Secretary)




     In August 2008, Mr. Handal’s employment agreement with the Company expired and Mr. Handal
remained employed as an at-will employee of the Company. In March 2009, Mr. Handal announced his
retirement from the Company, effective August 31, 2009. Effective April 1, 2009, Mr. Handal ceased
to be an executive officer of the Company and his title became Executive Vice President, Office of
the Chief Executive Officer. Mr. Handal is not a participant in the Company’s fiscal year 2010
annual performance incentive and long-term incentive plans. The Company expects that Mr. Handal
will receive a discretionary cash payment of up to $550,000 upon his retirement, largely reflecting
his performance during the transitional period from April 1 to August 31, 2009.
#### The Metropolitan Elevated Railway Company, Appellant, v. Sylvester H. Kneeland and others, Respondents.

Judgment affirmed. Opinion hy

Lawrence, J.
#### Robert B. McDowell, Doing Business as Columbia Distributors, Respondent, v Atco Rubber Products, Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendant.

Submitted February 13, 1996;

decided February 20, 1996

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, *sua sponte,*upon the ground that the two-Justice dissent is not on a question of law (CPLR 5601 [a]).
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5299 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow an enhanced credit 

for the rehabilitation of buildings located in low-income communities. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 30, 2014 

Mr. TURNER (for himself and Mr. FATTAH) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow an 

enhanced credit for the rehabilitation of buildings located 

in low-income communities. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Urban Core Revitaliza5 tion Act’’. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5299 IH

1 SEC. 2. ENHANCED REHABILITATION CREDIT FOR BUILD2 INGS LOCATED IN LOW-INCOME COMMU3 NITIES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (a) of section 47 of the 

5 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to rehabilitation 

6 credit) is amended— 

7 (1) by striking ‘‘structure, and’’ in paragraph 

8 (1) and inserting ‘‘structure and other than a build9 ing to which paragraph (2) applies,’’, and 

10 (2) by redesignating paragraph (2) as para11 graph (3) and inserting after paragraph (1) the fol12 lowing new paragraph: 

13 ‘‘(2) 15 percent of the qualified rehabilitation 

14 expenditures with respect to any qualified rehabili15 tated building (other than a certified historic struc16 ture) located in a low-income community, and’’. 

17 (b) LOW-INCOME COMMUNITY BUILDINGS.—Section 

18 47 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the fol19 lowing new subsection: 

20 ‘‘(e) LOW-INCOME COMMUNITY BUILDINGS.—For 

21 purposes of this section, the term ‘low-income community’ 

22 has the meaning given to such term by section 45D(e), 

23 and the determination of whether a building is located in 

24 such a community shall be made as of the date that the 

25 physical work on the rehabilitation of the building be26 gins.’’. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 5299 IH

1 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 this section shall apply with respect to rehabilitations the 

3 physical work on which begins after the date of enactment 

4 of this Act. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT E 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4758-5 Filed: 11/15/19 Entered: 11/15/19 10:11:43 Page 1

of 2
Exhibit E 

 Summary of Actual and Necessary Expenses for the Fee Period 

Expense Amount 

Meals $4,583.19 

Travel – Airfare $39,530.13 

Travel – Hotel $40,245.88 

Travel – Ground (Local) $113.65 

Travel – Ground (Out of Town) $13,846.86 

Copying Charges $11,695.00 

Computer Research – Outside $225.75 

Messenger $1,447.58 

Air Express $2,700.77 

Other Expenses $885.32 

Total $116,004.13 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4758-5 Filed: 11/15/19 Entered: 11/15/19 10:11:43 Page 2

of 2