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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                             942
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           1,213
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     28,062
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                              30
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                30
<LOANS>                                         33,760
<ALLOWANCE>                                        388
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  66,366
<DEPOSITS>                                      34,580
<SHORT-TERM>                                    13,400
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                167
<LONG-TERM>                                     11,101
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             6
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,503
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  66,366
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                    668
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  444
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     6
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 1,118
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                 379
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 710
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                              408
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   5
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                    278
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    204
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         204
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       126
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .28
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    .072
<LOANS-NON>                                        450
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   398
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       10
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  388
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               388
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 192 (Thursday, October 2, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 57375]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22842]



[[Page 57375]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health; Notice of 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of 
the Office of AIDS Research Advisory Council.
    The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to 
space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special 
assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable 
accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in 
advance of the meeting.

    Name of Committee: Office of AIDS Research Advisory Council.
    Date: October 24, 2008.
    Time: 1:30 p.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: The theme of the meeting will be ``Nutrition and the 
Clinical Management of HIV.'' An update will be provided on the 
OARAC Working Groups for Treatment and Prevention Guidelines.
    Place: Gaithersburg Hilton, 620 Perry Parkway, Gaithersburg, MD 
20877.
    Contact Person: Christina Brackna, Coordinator, Program Planning 
and Analysis, Office of AIDS Research, Office of the Director, NIH, 
5635 Fishers Lane MSC 9310, Suite 4000, Rockville, MD 20852, (301) 
402-8655, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c8aba5fdfbbe88a6a1a0e6afa7be"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="056668303673456b6c6d2b626a73">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Any interested person may file written comments with the 
committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed 
on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, 
telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional 
affiliation of the interested person.
    Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home 
page: http://www.nih.gov/od/oarlindex.htm, where an agenda and any 
additional information for the meeting will be posted when 
available.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.14, 
Intramural Research Training Award; 93.22, Clinical Research Loan 
Repayment Program for Individuals from Disadvantaged Backgrounds; 
93.232, Loan Repayment Program for Research Generally; 93.39, 
Academic Research Enhancement Award; 93.936, NIH Acquired 
Immunodeficiency Syndrome Research Loan Repayment Program; 93.187, 
Undergraduate Scholarship Program for Individuals from Disadvantaged 
Backgrounds, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 22, 2008.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
 [FR Doc. E8-22842 Filed 10-1-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 01-2968

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District

v. * of Nebraska.

*

Devoil Stanley Hicks, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 30, 2001

Filed: December 5, 2001

___________

Before LOKEN, HEANEY, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Devoil Stanley Hicks pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess

with intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and 18 U.S.C.

§ 2. The district court sentenced Hicks to 360 months imprisonment and 5 years

supervised release. Hicks appealed from the sentence imposed by the district court

and we remanded for resentencing in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466

(2000). See United States v. Hicks, No. 00-2400, 2000 WL 1872701, at *1 (8th Cir.

Dec. 22, 2000) (unpublished per curiam opinion).
-2-

The district court resentenced Hicks to 204 months imprisonment and 5 years

supervised release, and Hicks appeals. On appeal, Hicks's counsel has filed a brief

under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Hicks has filed a pro se

supplemental brief, arguing his indictment and sentence still violate Apprendi.

Without considering the effect of Hicks's verbal agreement at resentencing to waive

his right to appeal his sentence (and to seek certain other postconviction relief) in

exchange for a sentencing concession, we reject Hicks's appeal and affirm.

Specifically, Hicks stipulated at resentencing to the sentence he received and

thus he may not challenge it here. See United States v. Nguyen, 46 F.3d 781, 783

(8th Cir. 1995). Further, Hicks's sentence does not violate Apprendi because it is

below the 240-month statutory maximum for a cocaine-base conspiracy without

regard to drug quantity. See United States v. Aguayo-Delgado, 220 F.3d 926, 934

(8th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1026 (2000).

Having reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75

(1988), we find there are no non-frivolous issues.

Accordingly, we affirm and grant counsel's motion to withdraw.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
198 La. 766

#### STATE ex rel. HURLEY et al. v. ZONING BOARD OF APPEAL AND ADJUSTMENT et al.

No. 36363.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 3, 1941.

*823James M. Colomb, Jr., and J. E. Hurley, both of New Orleans, for plaintiffs, appel-lees.

Lavinius Williams, of New Orleans, for defendant and appellant.

ROGERS, Justice.

Miss Beatrice Ford and Mrs. Harry Mar-chesseau applied to the City Engineer for a permit to construct a three-family dwelling, with garage attached, on their property No. 1315 Third Street in the City of New Orleans. The permit was refused by the City Engineer, on the ground that the proposed construction violated the restrictions placed upon the use of the property by the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the municipality, in classifying as class “A” residential the district in which the property is situated. Ordinance No. 11,302, Commission Council Series of the City of New Orleans.

Miss Ford and Mrs. Marchesseau appealed to the Zoning Board of Appeal and Adjustment from the ruling of the City Engineer. The Board held a hearing on the appeal at which certain neighboring property owners were present and objected to the granting of the applicants’ application for the reasons set forth in their objections. Despite the protests offered to the granting of the application of Miss Ford and Mrs. Marchesseau, the Zoning Board of Appeal and Adjustment adopted a resolution reversing the ruling of the City Engineer and directing him to issue the permit. Within thirty days after the adoption of the resolution, the protesting neighboring property owners, Jack E. Hurley and Mrs. Thelma Barkdull, wife of Dr. H. Theodore Simon, petitioned the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeal and Adjustment. A writ of cer-tiorari was granted on the petition, and after hearing the parties, through their counsel, the Civil District Court reversed the decision of the Board and reinstated the ruling of the City Engineer.

The Zoning Board of Appeal and Adjustment has appealed from the judgment of the Civil District Court, and the ap-pellees, Mr. Hurley and Mrs. Simon, have moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground, among others, that the Zoning Board of Appeal and Adjustment, as a quasi judicial body, has no right of appeal, since it can in no sense be aggrieved or injuriously affected by the judgment of the Civil District Court.

The same question was presented for decision in the case of State ex rel. Robert G. Bringhurst et al. v. Zoning Board of Appeal and Adjustment et al., La.Sup., 4 So.2d 820, this day decided. In that case it was held, following the general rule that the Zoning Board of Appeal and Adjustment of the City of New Orleans, exercising quasi judicial functions, not being a party to the proceeding and not having a legal interest in maintaining its decision, had no standing to appeal from the judgment of the Civil District Court reversing the decision. Hence, the appellees’ motion to dismiss the appeal is well-founded and must prevail.

For the reasons assigned, the appeal herein is dismissed.
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 Annual Report of Cosmo Communications Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-K/A for the year ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Carol
Atkinson, 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 result of operations of the Company.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Cosmo Communications Corporation and will be retained by Cosmo Communications
Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request


/S/
      Carol AtkinsonCarol
      Atkinson
                  Chief
      Financial Officer
                  (Principal
      Accounting and Financial Officer)Date:
      June 11, 2009
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company

V .

Judith Hanson et al .

Civil No. 08-cv-248-JL

ORDER

On December 16, 2008, the Court issued an Order for Attorney Casey to register for ECF o r

show cause why he had not done so, along with a further motion for extension on or before

December 23, 2008.

On December 17, 2008, Attorney Casey orally requested a 30-day extension as he is without

power due to the Ice Storm of 2008 .

Attorney Casey's motion is granted to January 23, 2009 .

SO ORDERED.

December 17, 2008

cc: William Pandolph, Esq.

Jeanne Herrick, Esq.

Jackson Casey, Esq.

Jonathan Lax, Esq.

Patrick McAvoy, Esq .

/s/JosephN. Laplante

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

Case 1:08-cv-00248-JL Document 27 Filed 12/18/08 Page 1 of 1
#### In the Matter of Ana Mendez, Appellant, v Robert Doar, as Commissioner of New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, et al., Respondents.

[807 NYS2d 296]

Decision after fair hearing before New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, dated December 10, 2003, which affirmed the determination of the New York City Human *485Resources Administration as to violation of the Public Assistance and Food Stamp programs, and directed the Administration to disqualify petitioner from the Public Assistance Program for 12 months and from the Food Stamp Program for one year, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the CPLR article 78 proceeding (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [Faviola A. Soto, J.], entered July 1, 2004) dismissed, without costs.

In light of substantial evidence supporting the administrative determination that petitioner intentionally violated the Public Assistance and Food Stamp programs by failing to report that she and her daughter were employed during the relevant time period *(see Matter of Williams v Perales,*156 AD2d 697 [1989]), there is no basis for disturbing that ruling *(see 300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights,*45 NY2d 176, 181-182 [1978]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Marlow, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Patricia Taylor

v. Civil No. 06-cv-287-JD

United States of America

PROCEDURAL ORDER

The movant has filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to

vacate, set aside, or correct the sentence ordered by the court

following the movant's guilty plea in United States v. Patricia

Taylor, 04-cr-095-JD. The court has reviewed the motion.

The court orders the United States Attorney to file an

answer within sixty (60) days of the date of this order, which

answer shall provide a detailed response, with appropriate

references to the record when necessary, to each claim asserted

by the movant.

In the event that the United States Attorney contends that

the motion is not timely filed under the limitations provided for

in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 or that it is a second or successive motion, 

a motion to dismiss in lieu of a response shall be filed within

thirty (30) days of the date of this order.

 SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

District Judge

August 17, 2006

cc: Patricia Taylor, pro se

Aixa Maldonado-Quinones, Esquire

Case 1:06-cv-00287-JD Document 4 Filed 08/17/06 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Daniel Hall

 v. Civil No. 08-cv-101-JL

Brooks et al

O R D E R

The motion to amend is granted. No deadline to amend pleadings has yet been established due to

the filing of dispositive motions. The amendment appears to be corrective or clarifying in nature. 

The objection does not allege prejudice, futility (except to the extent that it would address the

amendment in an upcoming supplement to a dispositive motion), lack of diligence, or fraud. The

court finds no undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive, inexcusable repetitious failure to cure

deficiencies in previous amendments, undue prejudice, futility, fraud, or frivolity. See Fed. R.

Civ. P. 15; Foman V. Davis, 371 U.S 178, 182 (1962); In re Rauh, 119 F. 3d 46,52 (1st.

Cir. 1997); Executive Leasing Corp. v. Banco Popular, 48 F. 3d 66,71 (1st. Cir. 1995).

 SO ORDERED

July 3, 2008 /s/ Joseph N. Laplante

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

cc: Daniel Hall, Pro se

Michael J. Connolly, Esq.

Jean-Claude Sakellarios, Esq. 

John F. Bielagus, Esq.

David I. Bailinson, Esq. 

John G. Cronin, Esq. 

Ralph Suozzo, Esq. 

Nancy J. Smith, Esq. 

Case 1:08-cv-00101-JL Document 73 Filed 07/03/08 Page 1 of 1
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports:Boston |New York |Philadelphia |Cleveland |Richmond |AtlantaChicago |St. Louis |Minneapolis |Kansas City |Dallas |San FranciscoDistrict: 9Federal Reserve Bank of: MinneapolisFilings received during the week ending March 3, 2007FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodBLACKRIDGE FINANCIAL, INC.                                                                                              * 3A3BlackRidge Financial, Inc., Fargo, North Dakota, to acquire 100 percent of BlackRidgeBANK, Fargo, North Dakota, a de novo bank.Newspaper: Not availableFederal Register: Not availableCITIZENS BANCORP, INC.                                                                                                  * 3A1Citizens Bancorp, Inc., Cadott, Wisconsin, to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of Citizens State Bank, Cadott, Wisconsin.Newspaper: 03/03/2007Federal Register: 03/16/2007STATE BANK FINANCIAL                                                                                                    * 18C
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 190 (Tuesday, September 30, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 56816]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22854]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER08-1542-000]


U.S. Gas and Electric Inc; Notice of Filing

September 22, 2008.
    Take notice that on September 17, 2008, U.S. Gas and Electric Inc 
filed an application for order accepting its FERC Electric Tariff, 
Original Volume No. 1, under which it will engage in wholesale sales of 
electric energy, capacity, and ancillary services at market-based 
rates, grant certain blanket approvals and expedited action, and 
waivers of certain Commission regulations.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or 
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#60262532232f0e0c090e05331510100f121420060512034e070f16"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d89e9d8a9b97b6b4b1b6bd8bada8a8b7aaac98bebdaabbf6bfb7ae">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on October 8, 2008.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-22854 Filed 9-29-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 08-cr-109-01-JD

Cedric Ross

O R D E R

The assented to motion to reschedule jury trial (document no.

24) filed by defendant is granted.

Defendant shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights within 10

days. 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), for the

reasons set forth in the motion.

SO ORDERED.

 Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

Date: July 17, 2009

cc: Jon Saxe, AFD

Terry Ollila, AUSA

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:08-cr-00109-JD Document 25 Filed 07/17/09 Page 1 of 1
#### Philip Roth, Appellant, v Michael Speilman et al., Respondents.

[807 NYS2d 81]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan A. Madden, J.), entered June 15, 2004, upon a jury verdict, dismissing the complaint and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered on or about October 15, 2003, which denied plaintiffs motion to set aside the verdict, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from the October 15, 2003 order unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the ensuing judgment.

The court properly concluded that defendants’ certification of *384financial statements to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, which included the alleged loan purportedly owed to plaintiffs decedent, merely created an issue of fact as to the existence of the loan and defendants’ obligation to pay *(see Matter of Heisler v Gingras,*90 NY2d 682, 688 [1997]; *Cognetta v Valencia Devs., Inc.,*8 AD3d 318, 320 [2004]; *Knoll v Datek Sec. Corp.,*2 AD3d 594, 595 [2003]; *Skiadas v Terovolas,*271 AD2d 521 [2000]; *Estate of Vengroski v Garden Inn,*114 AD2d 927 [1985]). We reject plaintiffs theory of “estoppel by certification,” which would preclude defendants as matter of law from disputing the validity of the alleged loan *(see Heisler,*90 NY2d at 688). Concur—Sullivan, J.P., Nardelli, Catterson, McGuire and Malone, JJ.