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

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>

This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the 1999
Form 10-K, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such 10-K.

</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         334,273
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             877
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  1,073,338
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         588,201
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           575,368
<LOANS>                                      4,459,546
<ALLOWANCE>                                     59,975
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,887,508
<DEPOSITS>                                   4,960,334
<SHORT-TERM>                                   366,130
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            152,323
<LONG-TERM>                                    858,696
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        97,462
<OTHER-SE>                                     452,563
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               6,887,508
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                371,527
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              101,462
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                13,042
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               486,031
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             173,942
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             228,658
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          257,373
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   23,376
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               (338)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                289,674
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 48,668
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      37,076
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    37,076
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .76
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .75
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.57
<LOANS-NON>                                     27,183
<LOANS-PAST>                                    22,508
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   841
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 12,500
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                60,274
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   25,986
<RECOVERIES>                                     2,311
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               59,975
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            59,975
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0



</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6107

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DAQUAN TYREK BROWN, a/k/a Scutter, a/k/a Scutter P, a/k/a 

Keith Martin,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior

District Judge. (2:11-cr-00472-PMD-16; 2:14-cv-02515-PMD)

Submitted: August 31, 2016 Decided: September 7, 2016

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Daquan Tyrek Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Sean Kittrell, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Daquan Tyrek Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B)

(2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Brown has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements Nos.
333-98669, 333-87507, 33-61949, 33-52786, 33-36609, and 33-23837 of A.G. Edwards, Inc. on Form S-8 of our reports dated May 3, 2005, relating to the
consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of A.G. Edwards, Inc. and subsidiaries and managements report on the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of A.G. Edwards, Inc. for the year ended
February 28, 2005.



/s/ Deloitte
& Touche LLP St. Louis, Missouri May 5, 2005


---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 09-cr-11-PB

Joseph Delgado, et al.

O R D E R

Defendant Joseph Delgado, through counsel, has moved to

continue the trial scheduled for July 7, 2009, citing the need

for additional time to finalize plea negotiations and a

conflicting trial schedule with government counsel. The

government and co-defendants do not object to a continuance of

the trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reasons and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from July 7, 2009 to September 1, 2009. In

agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy

trial.

Case 1:09-cr-00011-PB Document 39 Filed 06/22/09 Page 1 of 2
2

The June 25, 2009 final pretrial conference is continued to

August 24, 2009 at 3:00 p.m.

No further continuances absent good cause shown.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

June 22, 2009

cc: Michael Ramsdell, Esq.

Liam D. Scully, Esq.

Ray Raimo, Esq.

John Pendleton, Esq.

Terry Ollila, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:09-cr-00011-PB Document 39 Filed 06/22/09 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Gary DeWayne Johnson,

Plaintiff

v. Case No. 08-cv-306-SM

Hillsborough County Superior

Court, et al., 

Defendants

O R D E R

The plaintiff having failed to comply with the Order of

Magistrate Judge Muirhead dated August 13, 2008, to pay the initial

filing fee, the complaint is hereby dismissed without prejudice.

SO ORDERED.

September 23, 2008 _________________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Gary DeWayne Johnson, pro se 

Case 1:08-cv-00306-SM Document 5 Filed 09/23/08 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**AND      PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

| Dated:                November 13, 2008   |                                                                                                                              |   |   |
|-------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|                                      |                                                                                                                              |   |   |
| **MONEYLOGIX                GROUP, INC.** |                                                                                                                              |   |   |
|                                      |                                                                                                                              |   |   |   |
| By:                                       | */s/ Majid                Haditaghi*                                                                                         |   |   |   |
|                                      | Majid                Haditaghi                                                                                                    |   |   |   |
|                                      |                                                                                                                              |   |   |   |
|                                      | Chief Executive                Officer,Chief                Financial Officer andPrincipal                Accounting Officer |   |   |   |

----
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: 2Federal Reserve Bank of: New YorkFilings received during the week ending September 16, 2017FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodNONE
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Richard Carbin, Appellant.

County Court, Schenectady County,

January 23, 1957.

*26
      *Bernard T. McGivern*for appellant.

*Emmet J. Lynch, District Attorney (Duncan S. McNab*of counsel), for respondent.

Archibald C. Wemple, J.

The offense is alleged to have happened on July 27,1956 at about 12:30 in the forenoon. The locale of the arrest was the Western Gateway Bridge, which connects the City of Schenectady with the Village of Scotia.

One of the unique characteristics of this bridge is a sharp, almost right-angle, curve, just west of the Schenectady approach. Geographically, the bridge is located in four different jurisdictions. Starting on the Schenectady side, at Washington Avenue, about 400 feet of the bridge is located within the confines of the city of Schenectady; then approximately 1,800 feet of the bridge, including the curve, is located in the town of Rotterdam; then approximately 150 feet is located in the town of Glenville; following which, about 200 feet is located within the village of Scotia.

The arresting officer testified that he was sitting in his car, on the Schenectady side of the bridge, facing east, when he saw a Plymouth car (not the defendant’s) coming down State Street, in the city of Schenectady, weaving and at a high rate of speed. The officer circled the traffic booth in the city of Schenectady to follow this car, which he allegedly kept in sight. On the bridge, the officer stated, he was following some eight or nine cars behind this speeder who tried to pass a car operated by the defendant herein. There were two lines of traffic going west and the officer could not get closer than 50 or 60 feet of the speeding car or the car of the defendant. The officer’s attention was concentrated .on the alleged speeding car, which he noticed passed several other cars, including the defendant’s car. The officer identified the locale of the offense as being in the town of Glenville by identifying certain light poles which carry certain numbers, and stated that the defendant was going over 60 miles an hour between certain poles allegedly in the town of Glenville, which area on the bridge consisted of about 150 feet.

*27It seems improbable that the arresting officer could operate his own vehicle, observe a speeding car which also passed other cars, identify by number certain light poles on the bridge, observe the speed shown on his own speedometer as well as the speed of two other cars, including that of the defendant, all at the same time, with the requisite exactness required to substantiate the offense charged herein.

In reading the record, there is found reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant.

Judgment of conviction is reversed and the fine of $50 remitted to the defendant.

Submit order.
review the court's application of the law to those facts de novo. Lader v. 

Warden, 121 Nev. 682, 686, 120 P.3d 1164, 1166 (2005). 

The district court denied these claims because it concluded 

that counsel squarely presented the issue of intent to the jury and a 

voluntary intoxication instruction wasn't warranted under the 

circumstances, and because the evidence against Mitchell, which included 

testimony that he confessed to entering the business with the intent to 

commit a larceny, was overwhelming. The record supports these 

determinations, and we conclude that the district court did not err by 

denying these claims. 

Second, Mitchell contends that the district court erred by 

relying on impalpable and highly suspect evidence at sentencing, resulting 

in a cruel and unusual sentence. Although Mitchell notes that trial 

counsel did not object below and appellate counsel did not raise such on 

appeal, he does not argue that the district court erred by finding that 

counsel were not ineffective. Instead, he argues that this court should 

review his sentence for excessiveness and reasonableness in the first 

instance. We decline to do so. See Davis v. State, 107 Nev. 600, 606, 817 

P.2d 1169, 1173 (1991) (holding that this court need not consider 

arguments raised on appeal that were not presented to the district court 

in the first instance), overruled on other grounds by Means v. State, 120 

Nev. 1001, 103 P.3d 25 (2004). Even if we were to construe this claim as a 

claim arguing that the district court erred by finding that counsel was not 

ineffective at sentencing, we conclude that it lacks merit because the 

district court did not err by denying the claim. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2 
, J. 

J. 

Having considered Mitchell's contentions and concluded that 

he is not entitled to relief, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

Gibbons 

cc: Hon. Patrick Flanagan, District Judge 

Karla K. Butko 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Washoe County District Attorney 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

3
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 Community Bancorp. (the "Company") on Form
10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned Chief
Executive Officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:  1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and 2) the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods
covered in the Report.





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








/s/ Louise M.
Bonvechio


Louise M.
Bonvechio, Vice President & CFO





March 31,
2007
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

# AGENCY:

U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security. 

# ACTION:

Notice of accreditation and approval of Inspectorate America Corporation, as a commercial gauger and laboratory.

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, Inspectorate America Corporation, 12211 Port Road, Operations Blvd., Seabrook, TX 77586, has been approved to gauge and accredited to test petroleum and petroleum products, organic chemicals and vegetable oils for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquires regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to                         *cbp.labhq@dhs.gov*. Please reference the Web site listed below for a complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited laboratories.                     

*http://cbp.gov/​xp/​cgov/​import/​operations_​support/​labs_​scientific_​svcs/​commercial_​gaugers/​*.                     

# DATES:

The accreditation and approval of Inspectorate America Corporation, as a commercial gauger and laboratory became effective on September 8, 2006. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for September 2009. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Commercial Gauger Laboratory Program Manager, Laboratories and Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, 202-344-1060. 

Dated: January 31, 2008. 

Ira S. Reese, 

Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services.

[FR Doc. E8-2319 Filed 2-7-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-142138, 33-60781, 333-96097, and 333-82682) of UniFirst Corporation of our reports dated November 12, 2009 with respect to the Consolidated Financial Statements and schedule of UniFirst Corporation and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of UniFirst Corporation, included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended August 29, 2009.

 

 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

 

November 12, 2009
Plan Agreement in respect of Deferred Compensation Plan



 Exhibit 10(ee) 
  
 INTERTAN, INC. 
  
 DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN 
  
 May 1, 2003 
  
 PLAN
AGREEMENT 
  
 To: EAN G. DAOUST 
  
 The Organization and Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of
InterTAN, Inc. (the “Committee”) has selected you to participate in the Deferred Compensation Plan (the “Plan”), a copy of which is furnished to you herewith. 
  
 Your participation in the Plan is voluntary and conditioned upon your acceptance of this Plan Agreement in the manner
provided below, by which it shall be agreed between us as follows: 
  

	 	1)	Your participation in the Plan and the rights accruing to you and your designated Beneficiary(ies) thereunder shall be in all respects subject to the terms and conditions of the
Plan, the full text of which, and as it may be from time to time amended, is incorporated herein by reference. You agree to be bound by the terms and provisions of the Plan, and specifically, but without limitation, to the noncompetition provisions
set forth in Section 5.5 of the Plan. 

  

	 	2)	For the purpose of determining the amount of benefits payable by InterTAN, Inc. (“InterTAN”) under the Plan, it is agreed and stipulated that your Plan Benefit Amount is
Cdn. $1,257,500. At the end of the Plan Agreement is an Addendum, which from time to time may be used to alter the Plan Benefit Amount as defined in the Plan by filling in the changed amount of the Plan Benefit Amount, by dating such change, and by
InterTAN and you executing such Addendum. 

  

	 	3)	You acknowledge receipt of a Beneficiary Designation Form furnished you herewith and agree that upon your acceptance and return of this Plan Agreement as provided below, you will
deliver such form completed as therein required. 

  
 If you desire to participate in the Plan, please accept and return the enclosed copy of this letter, together with your completed Beneficiary Designation Form, to Jeffrey A. Losch, on or before thirty (30) days from the date hereof,
whereupon you shall become a Participant in the Plan according and subject to the terms thereof. If you do not accept and return such copy within the above time period, then we will assume that you have voluntarily elected not to participate in the
Plan. 
  

			
	 Yours very truly,

	
	 INTERTAN, INC.

		
	By:	 	/s/    BRIAN E. LEVY        
	 	 	

	 	 	Brian E. Levy, President & Chief Executive Officer


  

	
	 ACCEPTED THIS 8th day of May, 2003.

	
	/s/    EAN G. DAOUST        
	

	Ean G. Daoust
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: 8Federal Reserve Bank of: St. LouisFilings received during the week ending December 16, 2017FilerFiling TypeFiling ProposalEnd of Comment PeriodIUKA BANCSHARES INC                                                                                                     CICNotice by David Armbrust, Salem, Illinois, to gain control of Iuka Bancshares, Inc., Salem, Illinois.Newspaper: 12/28/2017Federal Register: 01/08/2018OLD MISSOURI BANK                                                                                                       * BranchOld Missouri Bank, Springfield, Missouri, to establish a branch facility located at 318 W. Mt. Vernon Boulevard, Mt. Vernon, Missouri.Newspaper: 12/28/2017Federal Register: Not applicable