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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          82,305
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           8,461
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    387,983
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         237,756
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           222,364
<LOANS>                                      2,544,630
<ALLOWANCE>                                     18,260
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,407,292
<DEPOSITS>                                   2,886,509
<SHORT-TERM>                                    89,463
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             32,954
<LONG-TERM>                                    150,478
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,736
<OTHER-SE>                                     243,152
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               3,407,292
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                196,596
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               42,248
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   880
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               239,724
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             115,450
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             132,099
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          107,625
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    4,149
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 397
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 73,634
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 41,113
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      41,113
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    27,203
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .58
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .57
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.80
<LOANS-NON>                                     10,260
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                16,773
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  (3,276)
<RECOVERIES>                                       589
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               18,260
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                         18,260


</TABLE>
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

This
certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and accompanies the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB (the
"Form 10-QSB") for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 of Manhattan Bancorp (the "Company").

I,
Dean Fletcher, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify that, to the best of my knowledge:

|Date: November 7, 2007 | /s/DEAN FLETCHERDean Fletcher Executive Vice President
and
Chief Financial Officer
|---------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 116 

To require the Secretary of the Treasury to allocate $10,000,000,000 of 

Troubled Asset Relief Program funds to local governments that have 

suffered significant losses due to highly-rated investments in failed financial institutions. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 6, 2009 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of the Treasury to allocate 

$10,000,000,000 of Troubled Asset Relief Program 

funds to local governments that have suffered significant 

losses due to highly-rated investments in failed financial 

institutions. 

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 ‘‘TARP Assistance for 

5 Local Governments Act of 2009’’. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•S 116 IS

1 SEC. 2. ASSISTANCE TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. 

2 Section 101(a) of the Emergency Economic Stabiliza3 tion Act of 2008 (12 U.S.C. 5211(a)) is amended by add4 ing at the end the following: 

5 ‘‘(4) ASSISTANCE TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.— 

6 ‘‘(A) PURCHASE AUTHORITY.—The Sec7 retary shall use $10,000,000,000 of funds made 

8 available for the TARP to assist public instru9 mentalities, such as counties and cities, that 

10 have suffered significant increased costs or 

11 losses due to investments with failed financial 

12 institutions, as described in subparagraph (B). 

13 ‘‘(B) LIMITED TO HIGHLY RATED INVEST14 MENTS.—Assistance under this paragraph shall 

15 be limited to public instrumentalities that have 

16 suffered due to investments that the Secretary 

17 determines were highly rated in any failed fi18 nancial institution, whether or not the financial 

19 institution is assisted under this Act.’’. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

STEVEN JERMAINE CHARLES

NO. 2021 KW 1112

JANUARY 10, 2022

In Re: Steven Jermaine Charles, applying for supervisory

writs, 22nd Judicial District Court, Parish of St. 

Tammany, No. 548792. 

BEFORE: GUIDRY, HOLDRIDGE, AND CHUTZ, JJ. 

WRIT GRANTED. The district court' s

ruling denying

relator' s application for postconviction relief is vacated. 

This matter is remanded to the district court to reconsider its

ruling in light of State v. Harris, 2018- 1012 ( La. 7/ 9/ 20), _ 

So. 3d 2020 WL 3867207 and to allow the state to file a

response, if it has not already done so. After the state files

its response, the district court should determine whether it is

necessary to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the claim of

ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing. State v. 

Robinson, 2019- 01330 ( La. 11/ 24/ 20), 304 So. 3d 846 ( per curiam). 

JMG

GH

WRC

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

VkV

k

DEPUTY LERK OF COURT

FOR THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff,

Case No. 08-CR-20669-4-DT

v.

HON. ROBERT H. CLELAND

CARLOS SOLER-NORONA

Defendant.

/

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW

 AS COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT

A hearing was held on February 24, 2010 on the “Motion to Withdraw as Counsel

for the Defendant” by attorney David Cripps. For the reasons stated on the record by

counsel, the defendant and this court, the motion will be granted. However, as further

discussed on the record, the court finds that the only reason Defendant cannot currently

afford an attorney is because he first retained Mr. Cripps. The court further finds that the

breakdown in the attorney client relationship is entirely due to Defendant’s behavior and

his unreasonable insistence that he, rather than his attorney, should determine the

strategy of his defense. Under these circumstances, the court is not persuaded that the

public should bear the costs of paying for Defendant’s new attorney. While the court will

appoint counsel, the court will require that Defendant reimburse the public for the costs

of his representation. The court will determine the method and rate of reimbursement at

sentencing. Therefore, 

IT IS ORDERED that the motion to withdraw is GRANTED and the Federal

Defender’s Office is directed to assign another attorney from the CJA Panel to be
appointed and substituted to represent Defendant. 

Mr. Cripps is DIRECTED to tender to Defendant’s new counsel copies of all

relevant pleadings, correspondence, discovery, etc.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant shall reimburse the costs and fees

associated with the appointment of counsel at a rate to be determined at sentencing. 

Upon the filing of the appearance of new counsel, the court will schedule a status

conference to set new dates.

 S/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: February 26, 2010I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was

mailed to counsel of record on this date, February 26, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary

mail.

 S/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C3 ORDERS\08-20669 SOLER NORONA withdraw atty.wpd
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 122 (Monday, June 24, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 32438]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16057]



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

FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION


Farm Credit Administration Board; Special Meeting

AGENCY: Farm Credit Administration.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the Government in the 
Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b(e)(3)), of the special meeting of the Farm 
Credit Administration Board (Board).

DATE AND TIME: The special meeting of the Board will be held at the 
offices of the Farm Credit Administration in McLean, Virginia, on June 
25, 1996, from 9:00 a.m. until such time as the Board concludes its 
business.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Floyd Fithian, Secretary to the Farm 
Credit Administration Board, (703) 883-4025, TDD (703) 883-4444.

ADDRESS: Farm Credit Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, 
Virginia 22102-5090.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This meeting of the Board will be open to 
the public (limited space available). In order to increase the 
accessibility to Board meetings, persons requiring assistance should 
make arrangements in advance.
    The matters to be considered at the meeting are:

Open Session

    A. Approval of Minutes.
    B. New Business--Regulations.
    1. Capital (Phase II) [12 CFR Part 615] (Final).
    2. Eligibility and Scope of Financing [12 CFR Part 613] (Final).

    Dated: June 19, 1996.
Floyd Fithian,
Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board.
[FR Doc. 96-16057 Filed 6-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6705-01-P
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Alan W. COBB, Appellant.

No. 69363.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Aug. 6, 1996.

Craig A. Johnston, Asst. Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., David G. Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before DOWD, P.J., and REINHARD and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.

*562
      *ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Alan W. Cobb, appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of Jefferson County resentencing appellant as a persistent offender for driving while intoxicated. *See*RSMo § 577.023 (1986). Appellant was resentenced upon remand by this Court for a determination of whether a prior intoxicated-related traffic offense used to enhance the sentence was a violation of state statute. *State v. Cobb,*898 S.W.2d 124, 127 (Mo.App. E.D.1995). Appellant argues this resentenc-ing violated the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find no error. The issue on appeal here was previously decided in an earlier appeal of this case. Double jeopardy does not bar the state from presenting evidence at resentencing to prove appellant is a persistent offender. *State v. Cobb,*875 S.W.2d 533, 537 (Mo.banc 1994). Because an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).
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

PICCARRETA DAVIS KEENAN FIDEL PC

2 East Congress Street, Suite 1000

Tucson, AZ 85701

(520) 622-6900

Michael L. Piccarreta

State Bar No. 003962

Email: mlp@pd-law.com

Attorney for Defendant Andrew Padilla

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

 Plaintiff,

vs.

6. Andrew Padilla,

 (Counts 1-51)

 

 Defendants.

NO. CR-18-00422-06-PHX-SPL (BSB)

DEFENDANT PADILLA’S NOTICE OF 

JOINDER IN DEFENDANT LACEY’S 

MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE OF 

DOCUMENTS RELATED TO CARL 

FERRER’S WAIVER OF PRIVILEGE AS 

MATERIAL TO DISQUALIFICATION

(DOC. 200, 202)

Defendant Andrew Padilla, by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby

joins in Defendant Michael Lacey’s Motion for Disclosure of Documents Related to 

Carl Ferrer’s Waiver of Privilege as Material to Disqualification (Doc. 200, refiled at 

Doc. 202), and adopts the positions set forth in said motion as if fully set forth herein.

Defendant Padilla is in agreement with the arguments made in Defendant Lacey’s 

motion and the issues raised by Defendant Lacey apply with equal force to Defendant 

Padilla. Defendant Padilla therefore respectfully requests this Court to grant Defendant 

Lacey’s motion and order the government to disclose the requested records and 

information.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 210 Filed 07/03/18 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

2

It is expected that excludable delay under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1) may occur as 

a result of this motion or entry of an order based herein.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 3rd day of July, 2018.

PICCARRETA DAVIS KEENAN FIDEL PC

By: /s/ Michael L. Piccarreta

Michael L. Piccarreta

Attorney for Andrew Padilla

On July 3, 2018, a PDF version

of this document was filed with the

Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF

System for filing and for Transmittal

of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the

following CM/ECF registrants:

Kevin Rapp, kevin.rapp@usdoj.gov

Peter Kozinets, peter.kozinets@usdoj.gov

Andrew Stone, andrew.stone@usdoj.gov

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 210 Filed 07/03/18 Page 2 of 2
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





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of Pacific Copper Corp. (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 30, 2012 (the “Form 10-Q”) of the Company fully complies with the requirement of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated:   June 19, 2012





/s/ David HackmanDavid HackmanChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)





Dated:  June 19, 2012





/s/ Rakesh MalhotraRakesh MalhotraChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer and

Principal Accounting Officer)





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Pacific Copper Corp. and will be retained by Pacific Copper Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Fialka-Feldman v. Oakland University Board of Trustees Doc. 39 Att. 28

Dockets.Justia.com
**EXHIBIT 31.1**
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, Robert C. Bowen, certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Scientific Learning Corporation; 2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:   (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;   (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, 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 financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter of 2003 that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and 5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):   (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’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 asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: February 10, 2005
/s/ Robert C. Bowen
Robert C. Bowen
EXHIBIT 32.1
 CEO 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-Q 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-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.
  /s/ Alan StockAlan StockChief Executive Officer th
 /s/ Carol WaldmanName:
    Carol WaldmanTitle:
    Notary Public
**Exhibit
      32.1**




**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Ecoland
      International, Inc. for the quarter ending November 30, 2007, I, David Wallace,
      Chief Executive Officer of Ecoland International, Inc., hereby certify pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief,
      that:




1.  Such
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending November 30, 2007, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter
      ending November 30, 2007, fairly presents, in all material respects, the
      financial condition and results of operations of Ecoland International,
      Inc.




Dated:
      January 14, 2008.




/s/
                David WallaceDavid Wallace, Chief Executive Officer
#### Debra Lynn (Odell) LAWSON, Respondent, v. Robert Wayne ODELL, Appellant.

No. WD 47224.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Sept. 21, 1993.

Gail Berkowitz, Kansas City, for appellant.

Thomas Eugene Hankins, Gladstone, for respondent.

Before SPINDEN, P.J., and FENNER and HANNA, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from an order modifying a decree of dissolution. Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
AO 458 (Rev. 06/09) Appearance of Counsel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the
Eastern District of Michigan

7 Micah Fialka-Feldman_ )
Plaintiff )
ve ) Case No. 08-cv-14922
Oakland University Board of Trustees, et al.__ )
Defendant )
APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL
To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

| 1am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

We

‘Attorney's signature

Micah Fialka-Feldman _

Date: of q/ (0)

Printed name and bar number

Michigan Protection & Advocacy Service, Inc.
29200 Vassar, Ste. 200
Livonia, MI 48152

"Address

1 . vrao@mpas.org

E-mail address

(248) 473-2990 _
Telephone number

| (248) 473-4104
FAX number
#### In the Interest of W.F.N. and T.N., Respondent, Gary WAINT, Juvenile Officer, Respondent, v. V.N. and B.N., Natural Parents, Appellants.

No. WD 49473.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

June 20, 1995.

Edward Berg, Mid-Missouri Legal Services, Columbia, for appellants.

Thomas M. Shea, Moberly, for Gary Waint, Juvenile Officer.

*604Before BRECKENRIDGE, P.J., and ELLIS and LAURA DENVER STITH, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

V.N. and B.N. appeal the decision of the juvenile court terminating their parental rights to T.N. and W.N. They assert there was not sufficient evidence to support the decision and that the juvenile court erroneously applied the law.

The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
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 Quarterly Report of Evolution Resources, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended July31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Christopher P. Chambers, Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

1.

The Report fully complies with 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.

| |                                                                 
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------
| |                                                                 
| | /s/ Christopher P. Chambers                                     
| | Christopher P. Chambers                                         
| | Title: Executive Vice President and
Principal Accounting Officer



September 21, 2009
#### Scott HEDGPETH, Employee/Appellant, v. NATIONAL SUPER MARKETS, INC., Employer/Respondent.

No. 69891.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.

Oct. 8, 1996.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Nov. 18, 1996.

Harry J. Nichols, St. Louis, for employee/appellant.

Randee E. Schmittdiel, St. Louis, for employer/respondent.

Before CRANE, P.J., and GERALD M. SMITH and KAROHL, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Claimant appeals from the awards of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission affirming as modified the final awards of the *575Administrative Law Judge. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the Commission are not clearly erroneous, and an extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
2:08-cv-14524-PDB-MKM Doc # 37 Filed 10/20/11 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 1093
2:08-cv-14524-PDB-MKM Doc # 37 Filed 10/20/11 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 1094