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

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Balance Sheet as of March 31, 1997, and the Consolidated
Statement of Income for the three months ended March 31, 1997, and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      453,025
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    120,259
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          84,696
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        12,633
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 670,613
<COMMON>                                        57,263
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                       32,376
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            111,980
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 201,619
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           18,000
<PREFERRED>                                     20,831
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           164,662
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                 800
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                  16,400
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                   48,003
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 200,298
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  670,613
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                       91,770
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             5,631
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      72,490
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      78,121
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         13,649
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               1,122
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  14,771
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         4,537
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,234
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        589
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                    9,645
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         5,309
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                        4,182
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          15,910
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.85
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.85
        

</TABLE>
#### Raymond A. MAILLOUX, Claimant-Appellant, v. Anthony J. PRINCIPI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 02-7133.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Oct. 28, 2002.

ORDER

The parties having so agreed, it is

ORDERED that the proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R.App. P. 42(b).
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Calvin SNUGGS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-7021.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 14, 2003.

Decided Aug. 22, 2003.

*997Calvin Snuggs, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Hale Levin, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Calvin Snuggs seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. Snuggs cannot appeal this order unless a circuit judge or justice issues a certificate of appealability, and a certificate of appealability will not issue absent a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(2) (2000). An appellant meets this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), *cert. denied,*534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Snuggs has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Snuggs’ motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
Exhibit 10(a)



 EXHIBIT (10)(a) 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 







 Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in the Statement of Additional Information
and to use of our reports: (1) dated April 25, 2014, with respect to the statutory-basis financial statements and schedules of Monumental Life Insurance Company and (2) dated April 25, 2014, with respect to the financial statements of the
subaccounts of Separate Account VA CC, included in Post-Effective Amendment No. 10 to the Registration Statement (Form N-4, No. 333-146323) and related Prospectus of Advisor’s Edge Variable Annuity and Advisor’s Edge Select Variable
Annuity. 
  
 



 
 Des Moines, IA 
 April 25,
2014
Exhibit 31(ii)
                                --------------


                                CERTIFICATIONS
                                --------------

      I, Steve Bailey, certify that:


            1.  I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on
                Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period
                covered by this report on Form 10-K of Alternative Loan Trust
                2006-13T1 (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

            2.  Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports,
                taken as a whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and
                other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for
                the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange
                Act periodic reports;

            4.  I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
                servicer(s) and based on my knowledge and the compliance
                review(s) conducted in preparing the servicer compliance
                statement(s) required in this report under Item 1123 of
                Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act
                periodic reports, the servicer(s) have fulfilled their
                obligations under the servicing agreement(s) in all material
                respects; and

            5.  All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing
                criteria for asset-backed securities and their related
                attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing
                criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included
                in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB
                and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as
                an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in
                this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described
                in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form
                10-K.

            In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
            information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:
            The Bank of New York, as Trustee.

         Date: March 27, 2007


             /s/ Steve Bailey
             -----------------------
             Steve Bailey
             Senior Managing Director, Loan Administration
#### Max Kliger, Respondent, v. Samuel Rosenfeld and Morris Weisman, Defendants. Samuel Rosenfeld, as Receiver, Appellant.

—Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion.
<table>
                                                                         EXHIBIT 12.2
                     SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY
             COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                          (Dollars in millions)
<caption>

                                                                              For the six
                                                                              months ended
                                                                              June 30,
                               1997      1998      1999      2000      2001      2002
                             --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------

                          <c>       <c>       <c>       <c>       <c>       <c>
Fixed Charges:

  Interest                     $ 88      $ 81      $ 62      $ 72      $ 70      $ 24

  Interest portion of
    annual rentals                5         4         3         4         3         1
                             --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------
   Total Fixed Charges for
     Purpose of Ratio          $ 93      $ 85      $ 65      $ 76      $ 73      $ 25
                             ========  ========  ========  ========  ========  ========
Earnings:

Pretax income from
 continuing operations         $416      $287      $383      $390      $377      $199

Total Fixed Charges
  (from above)                   93        85        65        76        73        25
                             --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------
 Total Earnings for
  Purpose of Ratio             $509      $372      $448      $466      $450      $224
                             ========  ========  ========  ========  ========  ========
Ratio of Earnings
 To Fixed Charges              5.47      4.38      6.89      6.13      6.16      8.96
                             ========  ========  ========  ========  ========  ========



</table>
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2023-0811

_____________________________

ALVARIO MCCRAY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County.

Dustin Stephenson, Judge.

January 16, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. 

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

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

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

9.331.

_____________________________

Alvario McCray, pro se, Appellant.
2

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Daren L. Shippy, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 13-3604

___________________________

Antonio Murillo-Cadena

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner

v.

Eric H. Holder, Jr.

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent

____________

Petition for Review of an Order of the

 Board of Immigration Appeals

____________

 Submitted: May 30, 2014

Filed: June 12, 2014

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Mexican citizen Antonio Murillo-Cadena petitions for review of an order ofthe

Board of Immigration Appeals, denying his request to reopen his removal

proceedings. After careful review, we conclude that no abuse of discretion occurred. 

See Chen v. Holder, No. 13-1103, 2014 WL 1887364, at *2 (8th Cir. May, 13, 2014)
(abuse-of-discretion standard of review). Accordingly, we deny the petition for

review. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

-2-
<PAGE>

                                 EXHIBIT 21.1
                          Subsidiaries of the Company

                           Natural MicroSystems N.V.
                             Division ATEA 5-94.00
                           Industriepark Klein Gent
                               B-2200 Herentals
                                    Belgium

                        Natural MicroSystems Asia Ltd.
                              614 Concordia Plaza
                             1 Science Museum Road
                              Tsim-Sha-Tsui East
                              Kowloon, Hong Kong

                       Natural MicroSystems Europe S.A.
                               Immeuble Copernic
                              Parc Technologique
                                 18-22, Avenue
                          Edouard-Herriot - F - 92356
                           LE PLESSIS ROBINSON Cedex
                                    France

                    Natural MicroSystems Latin America S.A.
                       Soldado de la Independencia 1130
                                  Pisos 8 y 9
                        (1426) Buenos Aires, Argentina

                            NMS International, Inc.
                              100 Crossing Blvd.
                             Framingham, MA 01701

                               NMS Europe, Inc.
                              100 Crossing Blvd.
                             Framingham, MA 01701

                         Natural MicroSystems FSC Ltd.
                            69 A Kronprindsens Gade
                              P.O. Box 301858-UDS
                               Charlotte Amilie
                                  St. Thomas
                            US Virgin Islands 00803

                  Natural MicroSystems Securities Corporation
                              100 Crossing Blvd.
                             Framingham, MA 01701

                             Natural MicroSystems
                         Intelligent Network Division
                           911 North Plum Grove Road
                             Schaumburg, IL 60173
#### UNSER v. BAPTIST RESCUE MISSION et al.

Nos. 14653, 14918.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Oct. 29, 1934.

Hubert M. Ansley, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Hugh M. Wilkinson, A. Miles Coe, Fred W. Oser, and Harry Nowalsky, all of New Orleans, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

For some unaccountable reason appellant took two appeals from the judgment now under review. One he lodged in the Supreme Court and the other in this court. The appeal which was taken to the Supreme Court was 'transferred to this court and has now been consolidated with the appeal taken directly to this court. The matter involves a suit for damages ex delicto.

In the District Court there was judgment sustaining the exception of no cause of action and dismissing the suit.

The exception is directed at the fact that defendant is a charitable institution, and in the court below the argument prevailed that a charitable institution or organization should not be held liable for the acts of its servants or employees.

In Bougon v. Volunteers of America (La.App.) 151 So. 797, we considered a contention identical with that which now confronts us. There we held that there is a distinction between a tort committed by a servant of a charitable organization resulting in damage to a recipient or beneficiary of the charity and a similar tort resulting in damage to a third party, and we concluded that, whatever may he the correct rule where the injured party is a recipient or beneficiary of the charity, there can be no doubt of the right of a third party to maintain an action ex delicto for damage sustained.

On the exception which is now before us only that question is presented.

For the reasons, therefore, which appear in Bougon v. Volunteers of America (La. App.) 151 So. 797, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment appealed from be and it is annulled, avoided, and reversed, that the exception of no cause of action be and it is overruled, and that this matter be remanded to the district court for further proceedings according to law and not inconsistent with the views herein expressed.

Reversed and remanded.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, November 30, 2015.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of

the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, November 30, 2015

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A16I0061. CITY OF WARNER ROBINS, GEORGIA v. THE MEDICAL CENTER OF

CENTRAL GEORGIA, INC..

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

2013V109659
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Gregory Henrick DONCHEVICH, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 02-50322.

D.C. No. CR-00-00119-BTM.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 10, 2003.*

Decided March 20, 2003.

Before CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Gregory Henrick Donchevich appeals the sentence imposed upon revocation of his term of supervised release. He contends that 18 U.S.C. § 3583, which authorizes the imposition of a term of supervised release, is unconstitutional as applied under *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). This contention is foreclosed by *United States v. Liero,*298 F.3d 1175 (9th Cir.2002).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### John Will, Respondent, v. Charles P. Barnwell, Appellant.

Interlocutory judgment reversed, with costs, and demurrer sustained, with costs,, with leave to the plaintiff to plead over upon payment of the costs of the demurrer and of this appeal. Held, that the complaint fails to state any reason why the defendant failed to comply with the provisions of the former judgment or to allege that it was because of the refusal of defendant’s wife to join in the conveyance, or that the right to the relief sought by this action could not properly have been deter*907miued in the former action. All concurred, except Spring and Williams, JJ., who dissented.
#### Bradley, d. b. a. Wolverine Motor Freight Lines *v.*Public Utilities Commission of Ohio.

(No. 23536

Decided June 8, 1932.)

*Messrs. M. B. & R. R. Johnson, Mr. La Rue Brown, Mr. John T. Scott*and *Mr. Robert W. Wheeler,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Gilbert Bettman,*attorney general, and *Mr. Thomas J. Rerbert,*for defendant in error.

By the Court.

This case is but slightly different in its facts from the case of *Motor Transport & Truck Co.*v. *Public Utilities Commission, ante,*374, 181 N. E., 665, this day decided. The same questions of law are presented, and upon the authorities cited and the reasons stated in that case the order of the commission herein is affirmed.

*Order affirmed.*

Marshall, C. J., Jones, Matthias, Day, Allen, Kinkade and Stephenson, JJ., concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Alexander McALLISTER, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 01-50300.

D.C. No. CR-99-02071-IE G.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Jan. 16, 2003.

Decided March 20, 2003.

Before HALL, KOZINSKI and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Because the government did not enter any actual evidence (only unsubstantiated allegations), the district court had no basis to conclude, as a factual matter, that defendant breached the plea agreement. The government was thus obligated to honor its side of the bargain. Because the court below heard evidence the government should not have presented, we vacate defendant’s sentence and remand for re-sentencing before another district judge. *See United States v. Mondragon,*228 F.3d 978, 981 (9th Cir.2000) (“[T]his is in no *955sense to question the fairness of the sentencing judge; the fault here rests on the prosecutor .... ” (internal quotation marks omitted)). At resentencing, the government shall perform its obligations under the plea agreement.

VACATED and REMANDED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit
15.4





Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





The Board
of Directors


Hollysys
Automation Technologies Ltd


No. 2
Disheng Middle Road


Beijing
Economic-Technological Development Area


Beijing
100176


P.R.
China





We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form
S-8 (No. 333-170811) of Hollysys Automation Technologies Ltd (the “Company”) of
our reports dated December 21, 2010, relating to the consolidated financial
statements and the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over
financial reporting, which appears in this Form 20-F.





BDO
Limited


Hong
Kong




December
21, 2010
EXHIBIT 32.2
                                  ------------



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


In connection with the Annual Report of Paradigm Medical  Industries,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2003, as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
John Y. Yoon,  President and Chief  Executive  Officer of the Company,  certify,
pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  ss.  1350,  as adopted  pursuant  to Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

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

         (d)  the information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all
              material respect, the financial condition and result of operations
              of the Company.



                                            /s/Luis A. Mostacero
                                            ----------------------------------
Date: April 14, 2004                        Luis A. Mostacero
                                            Controller