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

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001023298
<NAME> AVENUE ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         170,386
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  313,069
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               513,158
<PP&E>                                          58,256
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,985,361
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,806,302
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        45,910
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,133,149
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,985,361
<SALES>                                        870,439
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               870,439
<CGS>                                          267,214
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,799,814
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (929,378)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,222
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (934,600)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (934,600)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                     EXHIBIT 15





TXU Corp.:

We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited condensed
consolidated interim financial information of TXU Corp. and subsidiaries (TXU
Corp.) for the three-month and six-month periods ended June 30, 2003 and 2002,
as indicated in our report dated August 12, 2003; because we did not perform an
audit, we expressed no opinion on that information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in TXU Corp.'s
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003, is
incorporated by reference in Registration Statements Nos. 333-37652, 333-64504,
333-64504-01, 333-64504-02, 333-71004, 333-71004-01, 333-71004-02, 333-84418,
333-84418-01 and 333-84418-02 on Form S-3 and Registration Statements Nos.
333-32833, 333-32837, 333-32843, 333-45657, 333-46671, 333-79627 as amended by
Post Effective Amendment No. 1 thereto, 333-93183, 333-62016, 333-62014,
333-86640, 333-92260 and 333-105133 on Form S-8.

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under
the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration
Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or
certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.



DELOITTE & TOUCHE  LLP

Dallas, Texas
August 12, 2003
<PAGE>


                                                                  EXHIBIT 99.18


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of United
Diagnostic, Inc. (the "Company") for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2001,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, J.
Marvin Feigenbaum, Chairman of the Board of Directors, President and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss.302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of United
Diagnostic, Inc.;

         2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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
annual report; and

         3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual 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 annual report.


Dated:  February 4, 2003             By:  /s/ J. Marvin Feigenbaum
                                          -------------------------------------
                                          J. Marvin Feigenbaum
                                          Chairman of the Board of Directors,
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer

         This certification accompanies this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB
pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except
to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes
of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





                                       32
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Western Pennsylvania Adventure Capital Fund, LLC on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, G. Richard Patton, President, Chief Executive Officer of Western Pennsylvania Adventure Capital Fund, LLC certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. (S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (S) 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 Western Pennsylvania Adventure
Capital Fund, LLC.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                               
|-----------------------------------------------
|/s/ G. Richard Patton                          
|G. Richard Patton                              
|President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
|May 4, 2010                                    

A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to Western Pennsylvania Adventure Capital Fund, LLC and will be retained by Western Pennsylvania Adventure Capital Fund, LLC and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

 v. Case No. 05-cr-259-01-SM

Carl Smith

O R D E R

Defendant's assented-to motion to continue the trial (document no. 15) is granted.

Trial has been rescheduled for the April 2006 trial period. Defendant shall file a Waiver of

Speedy Trial Rights not later than February 9, 2006. On the filing of such waiver, his

continuance shall be effective.

The court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance outweigh

the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18 U.S.C. §

3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would unreasonably deny the

defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation taking into account the

Case 1:05-cr-00259-SM Document 16 Filed 02/02/06 Page 1 of 2
2

exercise of due diligence under the circumstances.

Final Pretrial Conference: March 24, 2006 at 4:30 PM

Jury Selection: April 4, 2006 at 9:30 AM

SO ORDERED.

February 2, 2006 _________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Robert Kinsella, Esq.

 Bjorn Lange, Esq.

 U. S. Probation

 U. S. Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00259-SM Document 16 Filed 02/02/06 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:08-cv-00005-SM   Document 63   Filed 06/06/08   Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   600
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     600
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,567,600
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       123,800
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,634,500
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       600
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               388,500
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             333,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (721,500)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (721,500)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (721,500)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     .008
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .008




</TABLE>
#### Darnell Thomas, Appellant, v 14 Rollins Street Realty Corp. et al., Respondents.

[807 NYS2d 56]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alexander W. Hunter, Jr., J.), entered on or about September 24, 2004, awarding plaintiff $550,000 for past pain and suffering and $250,000 for future pain and suffering, and bringing up for review a ruling at the close of plaintiffs evidence which, insofar as challenged, dismissed plaintiffs claims for past lost earnings and past medical expenses, unanimously modified, on the law, to reinstate plaintiffs claim for past lost medical expenses incurred for services rendered by his treating physician, Dr. Lent, the matter remanded for further proceedings with respect to such claim, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

It appears to be the opinion of plaintiffs surgeons that six months after the accident requiring surgery for a bilateral patellar tendon rupture, plaintiff was able to “resume his full activi*318ties” and was otherwise “doing extremely well,” and that while plaintiff still complained of some pain and buckling two years after the accident, and was not “going to return to where he was before,” he was, from a clinical point of view, “doing great,” with restrictions limited mainly to activities involving repetitive rising and squatting. In view of the foregoing, and mindful of the bilateral nature of the tears that, until repaired, left plaintiff completely unable to walk, the jury’s award of $900,000 for past pain and suffering was properly reduced to $550,000, and its award of $100,000 for future pain and suffering was properly increased to $250,000 *(cf. Hoerner v Chrysler Fin. Co., L.L.C.,*21 AD3d 1254 [2005]; *Barlatier v Rollins Leasing Corp.,*292 AD2d 480 [2002]; *Alvarado v City of New York,*287 AD2d 296 [2001]; *Gainey v City of New York,*278 AD2d 102 [2000]). The trial court properly precluded plaintiffs treating physician from testifying about the need for future knee replacement surgery, where such surgery was not mentioned in either plaintiffs bill of particulars or expert disclosure statement, or even in his physician’s own records, and where defendants could have been expected to retain their own knee specialist to assess possible future knee surgery (CPLR 3101 [d] [1] [i]). Plaintiffs claim for past lost wages was properly dismissed at the close of his case for lack of evidence establishing an earnings history *(see Smith v Temco Servs. Indus.,*267 AD2d 176 [1999]), as was his claim for past physical therapy expenses for lack of bills or other evidence thereof. However, the testimony by plaintiff’s treating physician estimating the value of the surgery he performed was not speculative *(see Grinnell v City of New York,*244 AD2d 171 [1997]), and, accordingly, the claim therefor should have been submitted to the jury. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Sullivan, Williams, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.
17

A.12. Characteristics of Bank Loans to Farmers -- Large Farm Lenders, by Risk Rating, February 2-6, 2Percent except as notedLoan characteristic All Minimal Low Moderate Acceptable Special Not rateVolume of loans (thousands of dollars) 919,804 33,059 103,734 288,784 244,812 55,706 91,20Number of loans 15,068 480 1,677 6,021 5,056 878 54Weighted average maturity (months)1 18.62 57.14 17.72 16.35 12.57 12.58 37.1

Weighted average repricing interval (months)2 3.00 10.69 5.59 2.90 2.09 .41 3.4

Weighted average risk rating3 3.26 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 n.a

Weighted average interest rate 4 4.69 5.37 4.67 4.81 4.59 4.73 3.9 Standard error5 .13 .24 .38 .23 .17 .50 .5

 Interquartile range6 75th percentile 5.51 6.17 5.50 6.00 5.38 5.61 5.1 25th percentile 3.75 4.55 3.56 3.80 4.06 3.30 2.3 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 4.43 5.77 3.64 5.09 4.45 4.00 6.3 Other livestock 4.69 5.42 5.21 4.38 3.86 3.73 5.7 Other current operating expenses7 4.89 5.18 4.97 5.14 4.73 5.04 3.8

 Farm machinery and equipment 4.46 n.a. 4.78 4.32 5.26 3.35 4.5 Farm real estate 5.65 5.22 6.28 5.85 3.92 n.a. 6.2 Other8 4.33 2.96 4.69 4.19 4.39 4.03 2.9

Share of total loan volume Features of loan Floating rates 87.68 65.09 67.33 86.11 91.86 99.07 99.2 Under commitment 84.99 55.75 87.14 82.38 88.65 78.29 81.2 Callable 18.81 57.27 40.27 23.86 9.37 3.36 8.8 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 6.72 29.73 23.63 2.82 7.27 1.85 .2 Other livestock 5.50 6.12 13.04 4.85 4.72 4.22 7.6 Other current operating expenses7 46.31 31.33 37.48 53.32 59.60 72.14 32.8

 Farm machinery and equipment 7.11 n.a. 4.72 16.51 2.82 3.48 3.3 Farm real estate 4.69 32.44 3.11 3.36 1.81 n.a. 14.7 Other8 29.67 .38 18.02 19.15 23.78 18.31 41.1

 Type of collateral Farm real estate 9.45 24.23 6.87 9.02 7.44 17.25 3.9 Other 81.95 73.83 91.03 71.28 87.61 82.46 88.9 Note. Most large farm lenders that reported loans to farmers had more than $25 million in farm loans. For explanation of footnotes, see table A.8. n.a. Not available.
11

A.7. Distribution of Dollar Amount of Non-real-estate Farm Loans, by Effective Interest RatePercent

Effective interest rate (percent)

Zero 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 

All to to to to to to to to to to to to to to 

Quarter rates 4.9 5.9 6.9 7.9 8.9 9.9 10.9 11.9 12.9 13.9 14.9 15.9 16.9 17.9 1994: Q4... 100 * 3.00 15.00 27.00 23.00 20.00 6.00 6.00 * * * * * * 1995: Q4... 100 * .01 10.00 12.00 11.00 30.00 25.00 9.00 1.00 1.00 .01 * .01 * 1996: Q4... 100 * .01 19.00 8.00 27.00 25.00 16.00 4.00 1.00 .01 * .01 .01 * 1997: Q4... 100 * .01 5.00 6.00 34.00 31.00 16.00 6.00 1.00 .01 .01 .01 * * 1998: Q4... 100 .01 .01 .01 3.00 15.00 30.00 34.00 13.00 4.00 .01 .01 * * * 1999: Q4... 100 .01 .01 3.00 9.00 30.00 36.00 17.00 5.00 1.00 .01 .01 * * * 2000: Q4... 100 * .01 .01 3.00 15.00 30.00 34.00 13.00 4.00 .01 .01 .01 * * 2001: Q4... 100 21.20 32.80 13.60 16.40 10.50 4.10 .90 .30 .10 .00 .00 * * * 2002: Q4... 100 38.69 23.76 14.20 12.97 7.73 2.02 .44 .04 .04 .04 .02 .02 * * 2003: Q4... 100 46.26 21.96 16.40 10.95 3.03 1.10 .25 * .02 * .02 * * * 2004: Q4... 100 31.55 30.94 19.15 11.56 4.82 1.21 .67 .04 .02 .04 * * * * 2005: Q4... 100 .68 6.95 26.62 32.48 25.80 6.63 .70 * * * * * * * 2002: Q2... 100 23.24 22.45 17.77 22.77 10.15 2.75 .77 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00  Q3... 100 26.33 27.25 18.41 15.57 8.76 2.82 .49 .29 .06 * * * * *  Q4... 100 38.69 23.76 14.20 12.97 7.73 2.02 .44 .04 .04 .04 .02 .02 * * 2003: Q1... 100 37.28 22.16 18.64 14.73 4.88 1.72 .47 .02 .02 * * * * *  Q2... 100 27.25 23.90 21.19 18.64 6.55 1.77 .51 .08 .08 * .03 * * *  Q3... 100 41.83 23.79 18.38 11.11 3.67 .77 .22 .04 .04 .02 .02 .02 * *  Q4... 100 46.26 21.96 16.40 10.95 3.03 1.10 .25 * .02 * .02 * * * 2004: Q1... 100 43.84 22.35 17.33 11.30 3.56 1.16 .27 .05 .05 * .07 .02 * *  Q2... 100 42.54 25.54 17.44 10.50 3.02 .61 .25 .02 .05 * .02 * * *  Q3... 100 36.91 26.22 18.99 12.61 3.57 1.35 .27 .05 * .02 * * * *  Q4... 100 31.55 30.94 19.15 11.56 4.82 1.21 .67 .04 .02 .04 * * * * 2005: Q1... 100 11.07 19.85 27.21 29.30 11.22 1.06 .17 .13 * * * * .00 .00  Q2... 100 6.46 19.30 39.57 24.01 8.33 1.98 .19 .13 .02 * * .00 * *  Q3... 100 8.94 14.99 34.66 24.51 14.68 1.94 .21 .05 .02 .01 .01 * * *  Q4... 100 .68 6.95 26.62 32.48 25.80 6.63 .70 * * * * * * *  Note. Non-real-estate farm loans of $1,000 or more made by insured commercial banks. Effective (compounded) annual interest from the stated rate and other terms of the loans and weighted by loan size. Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. * Indicates value of zero. Source. Federal Reserve Survey of the Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers, conducted during the first full business week of the sequarter.
*Release Date: December 21, 2007*

*Other formats:*
ASCII (2 KB)
PDF (3 KB)
CSV (2 KB)

----

```
B.3. Net Charge-offs of Non-real-estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks
```

| Year | Estimated volume (billions of dollars) | Share of outstanding farm production loans (percent) |
|------|----------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|
||
| 95   | 16                                     | 27                                                   | 24 | 30 | .240 | .039 | .070 | .058 | .071 |
| 93   | 6                                      | 19                                                   | 19 | 50 | .230 | .014 | .049 | .045 | .112 |
| 87   | 4                                      | 15                                                   | 24 | 45 | .198 | .008 | .036 | .051 | .095 |
| 126  | 18                                     | 37                                                   | 35 | 36 | .280 | .040 | .086 | .078 | .080 |
| 108  | 11                                     | 17                                                   | 34 | 45 | .259 | .027 | .041 | .075 | .098 |
| 308  | 67                                     | 53                                                   | 140 | 48 | .656 | .142 | .118 | .294 | .101 |
| 221  | 40                                     | 50                                                   | 58 | 73 | .471 | .085 | .114 | .124 | .157 |
| 175  | 34                                     | 35                                                   | 48 | 58 | .382 | .074 | .080 | .108 | .128 |
| 129  | 28                                     | 17                                                   | 46 | 38 | .284 | .062 | .039 | .099 | .081 |
| 59   | 8                                      | 16                                                   | 12 | 24 | .124 | .017 | .035 | .026 | .048 |
| 73   | 9                                      | 7                                                    | 23 | 34 | .146 | .018 | .015 | .045 | .064 |
| n.a. | 8                                      | 13                                                   | 23 | n.a. | n.a. | .014 | .025 | .042 | n.a. |
```
   Note. Components might not sum to totals because of rounding. Reported
amounts are adjusted to exclude foreign results for large banks that
report farm net charge-offs on a consolidated basis and for small banks
that are allowed to report net charge-offs according to their internal
definition of agricultural loans. Quarterly data are as of end of quarter.
   n.a. Not available.
```

*Other formats:*
ASCII (2 KB)
PDF (3 KB)
CSV (2 KB)

Statistical releases

----

HomeEconomic research and dataAccessibilityContact Us
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sixto Rodriguez RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-40148.

Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 20, 2003.

Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Sixto Rodriguez Rodriguez appeals his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry into the United States following deportation. He argues that 8 U.S.C. 1326(b), the statute under which he was convicted and sentenced, is unconstitutional on its face and as applied in his case in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). However, Rodriguez concedes that his argument is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219,140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), but wishes to preserve the issue for further review by the Supreme Court.

*Apprendi*did not overrule *Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,*530 U.S. at 489-90, 120 S.Ct. 2348; *see also United States v. Dabeit,*231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir.2000). This court therefore must follow *Almendarez-Torres*“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” *Dabeit,*231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation and citation omitted). Rodriguez’s argument is -without merit.

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.