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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                            0
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    373,200
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         768,100
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                             0
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                  80,500
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,221,800
<COMMON>                                         2,800
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      725,600
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                        (3,998,000)
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>             (3,069,200)
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        2,358,700
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                                 0
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                             450,000
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                        0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                     78,100
<LEASES-CURRENT>                               123,000
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                  75,500
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                (572,200)
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      476,300
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             1,600
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                           0
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     815,200
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                      (560,900)
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                   0
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>               (560,900)
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       (5,200)
<NET-INCOME>                                 (567,700)
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                (622,200)
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                             0
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                       (602,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.15)
        

</TABLE>
Case 1:11-cv-02577-PAB-MJW Document 22 Filed 01/19/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 6
Case 1:11-cv-02577-PAB-MJW Document 22 Filed 01/19/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 6
Case 1:11-cv-02577-PAB-MJW Document 22 Filed 01/19/12 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 6
Case 1:11-cv-02577-PAB-MJW Document 22 Filed 01/19/12 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 6
Case 1:11-cv-02577-PAB-MJW Document 22 Filed 01/19/12 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 6
Case 1:11-cv-02577-PAB-MJW Document 22 Filed 01/19/12 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 6
Case 1:11-cv-02633-PAB-KLM Document 41 Filed 10/04/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit32(a)**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Hickory Tech Corporation (HickoryTech) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John E. Duffy, Chief ExecutiveOfficer of HickoryTech, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

 

(1)               TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)               Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of HickoryTech.

 

 

John E. Duffy

President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer

May 10, 2006

 

----
#### J. B. GRAY v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Florida.

January Term 1954.

Certiorari denied without opinion.
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 Hickory Tech Corporation on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John W. Finke, Chief Executive Officer of HickoryTech, 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 results of operations of HickoryTech.











/s/ John W. Finke


John W. Finke


President and Chief Executive Officer


April 27, 2010
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT 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 PhotonicProducts Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December31, 2006 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I,William J. Foote, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition of theCompany as of the dates presented and consolidated results of operations of theCompany for the periods presented.
| Dated: March 29, 2007 |
|-----------------------|
|                  |
|                  |
|                  | /s/ William  J. Foote |   |
|                  | William J. Foote |
|                  | Vice President - Chief Financial Officer |
|                  | and Secretary |

 

Thiscertification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Sections 906 has been provided to the Company andwill be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission, or its staff, upon request.

 

----
1 “[#8]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a specific

paper by the court’s electronic case filing and management system (CM/ECF). I use this convention

throughout this order.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Robert E. Blackburn

Civil Case No. 11-cv-02574-REB-CBS

JARED R. PRIDEAUX,

Plaintiff,

v.

NORTHLAND GROUP, INC., a Minnesota corporation,

Defendant.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Blackburn, J.

The matter is before me on the Stipulated Motion To Dismiss With Prejudice

[#8]1

 filed December 19, 2011. After reviewing the motion and the file, I conclude that

the motion should be granted and that this action should be dismissed with prejudice.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. That the Stipulated Motion To Dismiss With Prejudice [#8] filed December

19, 2011, is GRANTED; and

2. That this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE with the parties to pay

their own attorney fees and costs. 

Dated December 19, 2011, at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

Case 1:11-cv-02574-REB-CBS Document 10 Filed 12/19/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge David L. West

Criminal Case No.: 11-PO-00136-DLW 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

1. WASH KMUSH BUCKSKIN,

Defendant.

 

ORDER FOR RELEASE FROM CUSTODY

 

ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE DAVID L. WEST

The Defendant was arrested on a Warrant due to Violation of Probation. After an appearance

before the Magistrate Judge on July 11, 2012, it was determined that due to the time the Defendant

had already spent in custody he had served the maximum amount of time for this offense, therefore:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendant’s probation is terminated and that he be

immediately released from custody of the U. S. Marshal’s Service.

DATED: July 11, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

s/David L. West 

United States Magistrate Judge
EXHIBIT 31.1

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Section 302 Certification of Chief Executive Officer

I, James L. Saner, Sr., certify that:


1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of MainSource Financial
Group;

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

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

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

         (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
         disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
         supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
         registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
         us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
         which this report is being prepared;

         (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
         and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the
         effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
         of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

         (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
         control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
         most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in
         the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
         reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal
         control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

         (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
         or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
         reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to
         record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

         (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
         other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
         internal control over financial reporting .


Date:  March 10, 2004

James L. Saner, Sr.
-------------------
[Signature]

President & Chief Executive Officer
-----------------------------------
[Title]
#### UNITED STATES of America ex rel. Ora Lee ROGERS, Appellant, v. The Honorable James H. DAVIS, Governor of the State of Louisiana, and Victor G. Walker, Warden of the Louisiana State Penitentiary, Appellees.

No. 20436.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

Oct. 25, 1963.

*654Ernest N. Morial, Nils R. Douglas, New Orleans, La., for appellant.

Louis 0. Fusilier, Ville Platte, La., Teddy W. Airhart, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen. of Louisiana, Jack P. F. Gremillion, Atty. Gen. of Louisiana, Baton Rouge, La., for appellees.

Before RIVES and JONES, Circuit Judges, and DAWKINS, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from the denial, without a plenary hearing, of a petition for a writ of *habeas corpus.*

Appellant, a Negro under a death sentence for murder imposed by the State District Court for Evangeline Parish, Louisiana, alleged that his conviction was unconstitutionally obtained because for many years Negroes had been systematically excluded from jury venires and particularly from the grand jury which indicted him and the petit jury which convicted him. The District Court dismissed appellant’s application upon the ground that he had not exhausted all of his State remedies, particularly under the Louisiana Habeas Corpus Statute, LSA-R.S. 15:113-15:141.

Appellant’s contention as here made was presented, passed upon, and found adversely to him, both by the State trial court and the State Supreme Court. State v. Rogers, 241 La. 841, 132 So.2d 819 at 843-845. An application for *certiorari*to the United States Supreme Court was denied. 370 U.S. 963, 82 S.Ct. 1589, 8 L.Ed.2d 830.

 It is now firmly settled that, before bringing a federal *habeas corpus*action, a convicted state prisoner need not repetitiously seek relief from the State where the same federal constitutional issues already have been decided against his contentions by the State Courts. Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 73 S.Ct. 397, 97 L.Ed. 469 (1953) ; Whitus v. Balkcom, 299 F.2d 844 (C.A. 5, 1962), reversed, *per curiam*370 U.S. 728, 82 S.Ct. 1575, 8 L.Ed.2d 803 (1962); Daugharty v. Gladden, 257 F.2d 750, 754 (C.A. 9, 1958).

The judgment of the District Court is reversed and the matter is remanded for a hearing on the merits of the petition for *habeas corpus.*

Reversed and remanded.
| Skip to Content*Release Date: March 10, 2005*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**F.216 Other Loans and Advances** |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 199 (Tuesday, October 14, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 60686]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-24275]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EF08-4081-000]


Southwestern Power Administration; Notice of Filing

October 3, 2008.
    Take notice that on September 26, 2008, the Deputy Secretary, U.S. 
Department of Energy, pursuant to the authority vested on the Deputy 
Secretary by the Department of Energy's Delegation Order Nos. 00-
001.00B (2005) and 00-037.00 (201), and by sections 301(b), 302(a), 
402(e), 641, 642, 643, and 644, of the Department of Energy 
Organization Act (Pub. L. 95-91), submitted final confirmation, 
approval, and placed in effect on an interim basis for period October 
1, 2008, through September 30, 2012, the Southwestern Power 
Administration Power Rate for the Robert Douglas Willis Hydropower 
Project.
    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#773132253438191b1e191224020707180503371112051459101801"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fdbbb8afbeb29391949398ae888d8d928f89bd9b988f9ed39a928b">[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 27, 2008.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-24275 Filed 10-10-08; 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>
| Skip to Content*Release Date: March 8, 2007*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**F.1 Total Net Borrowing and Lending in Credit Markets1** |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### DEL BONDIO v. FAHY.

No. 17536.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

April 21, 1941.

Rehearing Denied May 20, 1941.

R. A. Dowling and J. J. Jackson, both of New Orleans, for appellant.

Harry R. Cabral, of New Orleans, for appellee.

JANVIER, Judge.

This is a suit on a promissory note. The sole defense raised in the answer is “that the said note is a forgery”.

When the case was called for trial, plaintiff testified that the note had been signed in his presence and offered other evidence to corroborate the genuineness of the signature. Defendant stated that she had not signed the note, but her denial did not evidence positiveness or certainty.

Her counsel attempted to prove that she had received no consideration for the note and, on objection, the district judge ruled this evidence a.s inadmissible, but, nevertheless, heard it and then ruled that it could not be considered because of the effect of article 326 of the Code of Practice, which reads as follows: “The defendant, whose signature shall have been proved after his having denied the same, shall be barred from every other defense, and judgment shall be given against him without further proceedings.”

He then rendered judgment against defendant. She has appealed.

> The evidence as to the genuineness of the note is quite convincing and does not justify a reversal of the judgment. On the contrary, it convinces us of its correctness. Because of the provisions of article 326 of the Code of Practice, the evidence touching upon the suggestion that no consideration was received should have been entirely excluded. In Hemenway, Inc., v. Guillory, 155 So. 57, 58, the Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit, after declaring that, in a suit on a promissory note, where the genuineness of the signature is denied, the burden of proving the genuineness is on the plaintiff, continued to say: “If plaintiff has discharged this burden of proof, there will be no other issue in the case because, as declared by article 326 of the Code of Practice, when a defendant, sued on an act under private signature, denies the genuineness of his signature thereon and the verity of such sig--nature is established, he ‘shall be barred from every other defense.’ ”

See, also, Brandin Slate Company, Inc., v. Bennett et al., 153 La. 89, 190 So. 342.

The judge a quo was, therefore, correct in refusing to consider this defense.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed at the cost of appellant.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 99.2



Certification of Chief Financial Officer



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned chief financial officer of Taylor Capital Group, Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies that:



(i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2003 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



(ii) the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                    
|--------------------
|Dated:  May 14, 2003
|                    



This certification
accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.







A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Taylor Capital Group, Inc. and will be retained by Taylor Capital
Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 146 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 146

     To require the Federal Government to purchase fuel efficient 
                  automobiles, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 4, 2007

  Mrs. Boxer introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To require the Federal Government to purchase fuel efficient 
                  automobiles, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Government Fleet Fuel Economy Act of 
2007''.

SEC. 2. FEDERAL FLEET FUEL ECONOMY.

    Section 32917 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
    ``(c) New Vehicles.--
            ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
        each passenger vehicle purchased, or leased for at least 60 
        consecutive days, by an executive agency after the date of the 
        enactment of the Government Fleet Fuel Economy Act of 2007 
        shall be as fuel efficient as possible.
            ``(2) Waiver.--An executive agency may submit a written 
        request to Congress for a waiver of the requirement under 
        paragraph (1) in an emergency situation.''.
                                 <all>
```
| Skip to Content*Release Date: September 21, 2005*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**L.131 Funding Corporations1** |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|