alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Fritz *v.*Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Co.

(No. 25495

Decided October 2, 1935.)

*Mr. William M. Sclvwarts*and *Mr. Lody Huml,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Squire, Sanders S Dempsey*and *Mr.. Edwin E. Chaney,*for defendant in error.

It is ordered and adjudged that said petition in error be, and the same is hereby, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Petition in error dismissed.*

Weygandt, 0. J., Stephenson, Williams, Jones, Matthias, Day and Zimmerman, JJ., concur.
| (1) | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;  and |
|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2) | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      November 16, 2009                                      |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                              |   |
|                                                              |   |
| /s/ Charles E. Leibold                                            |   |
| Charles      E. Leibold                                           |   |
| Chief      Financial Officer andPrincipal      Accounting Officer |   |
#### CIGALI v. KAPLAN.

No. 18985.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

April 12, 1948.

Felix W. Gaudin and James. J. Grevem-berg, .both of New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellee. . ,

James David McNeill, of New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff-appellee moved to dismiss defendant’s suspensive appeal. .The motion and order for the appeal were timely, but we are urged to dismiss the appeal because the bond was filed after the time allowed by law for the perfection of the suspensive appeal.

. The motion to dismiss cannot avail, as ,it was not filed within three judicial days after the transcript was lodged with us. Code Prac. art. 886. It is well settled that where the appeal bond is not timely filed, or even where there is no appeal bond furnished, such informality or irregularity, to afford a ground for dismissal of the appeal, must be taken advantage of by the appellee within three judicial days from the filing of the transcript. Hall v. Nevill, 3 La.Ann. 326; State v. Callac, 45 La.Ann. 27, 12 So. 119; De Bautte v. Weil Brothers Co., 12 Orleans App. 107; Greco v. Millano, 13 Orleans App. 134; Powell v. Christina, 7 La.App. 651; Bordes v. Bank of St. Bernard, 141 La. 144, 74 So. 884, 885. In the Bordes case the Supreme Court said: “We learn from the brief that the first of these grounds of dismissal is based upon the fact that the bond of appeal was filed more than 12 months after the date of the judgment. * * * But we will add that even if well pleaded they could not avail, as they are based on mere irregularities which in order to serve for the dismissal of an appeal would have had to have been called to the attention of the court within 3 days from the filing of the transcript; and the motion to dismiss in this case was not filed within that time. Coreil v. Town of Welsh, 120 La. [557], 558, 45 So. 438; Barton v. Burbank, 119 La. [224], 227, 43 So. 1014.”

The motion to dismiss the appeal'is denied.

Motion denied.
<PAGE>




                                                                      Exhibit 32


                                  CERTIFICATION

   PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (SUBSECTIONS (a)
      AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)



Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of AMERICAN TECHNICAL CERAMICS CORP., a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge,
that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003 (the
"Form 10-Q") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information
contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Dated: November 13, 2003          /S/VICTOR INSETTA
                               -----------------------
                               Chief Executive Officer



Dated: November 13, 2003          /S/ANDREW R. PERZ
                               -----------------------
                               Chief Financial Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
BEN & JERRY'S HOMEMADE, INC.
                      COMPUTATION OF NET EARNINGS PER SHARE
                     (In thousands except per share amounts)




<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                             Thirteen weeks ended             Thirty-nine weeks ended
<S>                                       <C>              <C>             <C>                <C>  
                                            9/26/98          9/27/97          9/26/98           9/27/97
                                          ----------       ----------       ----------        ----------

Basic:
Weighted average shares outstanding            7,181            7,279            7,223             7,250
                                         ===========       ==========      ===========        ==========

Net income                                    $2,892           $2,528           $5,402            $3,210
                                         ===========       ==========      ===========        ==========
Basic earnings per share amount              $ 0.40            $ 0.35           $ 0.75            $ 0.44
                                         ===========       ==========      ===========        ==========


Diluted:
Weighted average shares outstanding            7,181            7,279            7,223             7,250
Effect of dilutive securities

      Employee stock options                     265               62              258                64
                                         -----------       ----------      -----------        ----------

Diluted shares outstanding                     7,446            7,341            7,481             7,314
                                         ===========       ==========      ===========        ==========
Net income                                    $2,892           $2,528           $5,402            $3,210
                                         ===========       ==========      ===========        ==========
Diluted earnings per share amount             $ 0.39           $ 0.34           $ 0.72            $ 0.43
                                         ===========       ==========      ===========        ==========

</TABLE>
1 Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

___________________________

No. 95-50872

Summary Calendar

___________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

BARRY YETT,

Defendant-Appellant.

___________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Western District of Texas

(A-95-CR-33)

____________________________________________________

October 22, 1996

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

Barry Yett appeals the district court’s denial of his motion

to suppress evidence discovered during a search conducted pursuant

to a search warrant for Buck’s Automotive. Yett contends that

officers conducting the search knew or should have known that the

building designated as Buck’s Automotive was a multiple-business

building and that their search of the entire building violated his

rights under the Fourth Amendment.
2

In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we accept the

district court’s findings of fact unless the findings are clearly

erroneous and review de novo the ultimate determination of

reasonableness. United States v. Chavez-Villarreal, 3 F.3d 124,

126 (5th Cir. 1993); United States v. Jenkins, 46 F.3d 447, 451

(5th Cir. 1995). The district court made specific findings, based

in part on the credibility of the witnesses, that there was no

evidence that two separate businesses were housed in the building

and that Yett failed to present any evidence to persuade the

district court that the agents knew, or should have known, about

the existence of a separate business either prior to or during the

execution of the warrant. Yett has failed to demonstrate that the

district court’s findings were clearly erroneous. Based on these

findings, we agree with the district court’s determination that the

officers acted reasonably and in good faith in obtaining and

executing the warrant in question. Accordingly, the order of the

district court is AFFIRMED.

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-02-1999
<CASH>                                             610
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,502
<ALLOWANCES>                                       130
<INVENTORY>                                     33,694
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                52,463
<PP&E>                                          97,160
<DEPRECIATION>                                  32,336
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 127,803
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,128
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,380
<OTHER-SE>                                      61,963
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   127,803
<SALES>                                         36,808
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                36,808
<CGS>                                           20,995
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   33,414
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 512
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,882
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,182
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,700
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,700
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.14
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit10.7

June 11, 2004

Graham CapitalManagement, L.P. Rock Ledge Financial Center 40 HighlandAvenue Rowayton, CT 06853

Attention: Mr. PaulSedlack

Re:    Management Agreement Renewals

Dear Mr. Sedlack:

We are writing with respectto your management agreements concerning the commodity pools to whichreference is made below (the "ManagementAgreements"). We are extending the term of the ManagementAgreements through June 30, 2005 and all other provisions of theManagement Agreements will remainunchanged.

|              |                                         |
|--------------|-----------------------------------------|
| •  | Smith Barney Global MarketsFutures Fund |

|              |                                              |
|--------------|----------------------------------------------|
| •  | Smith Barney DiversifiedFutures Fund L.P. II |

|              |                                           |
|--------------|-------------------------------------------|
| •  | Smith BarneyDiversified Futures Fund L.P. |

|              |                                                        |
|--------------|--------------------------------------------------------|
| •  | SalomonSmith Barney Diversified 2000 Futures Fund L.P. |

|              |            |
|--------------|------------|
| •  | AURORA2001 |

|              |           |
|--------------|-----------|
| •  | AURORAIII |

|              |                                                 |
|--------------|-------------------------------------------------|
| •  | Salomon Smith Barney FairfieldFutures Fund L.P. |

|              |                                        |
|--------------|----------------------------------------|
| •  | Citigroup DiversifiedFutures Fund L.P. |

|              |                                         |
|--------------|-----------------------------------------|
| •  | Citigroup FairfieldFutures Fund L.P. II |

|              |          |
|--------------|----------|
| •  | Alera100 |

|              |                     |
|--------------|---------------------|
| •  | Alera Portfolio Spc |

Please acknowledge receipt of this modification by signingone copy of this letter and returning it to the attention of Mr. DanielMcAuliffe at the address above or fax to 212-793-1986. If you have anyquestions I can be reached at 212-559-5043.

Very trulyyours,

CITIGROUP MANAGED FUTURES LLC

|           |                                                                                           |
|-----------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| By:  | /s/ Daniel R. McAuliffe, Jr.Daniel R. McAuliffe, Jr. Chief Financial Officer and Director |

|           |                  |
|-----------|------------------|
| By:  | /s/ Paul Sedlack |

PrintName: Paul Sedlack

DRMcA/sr

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-2207

OLLYE TINE SNOW REYNOLDS; BOBBY O. REYNOLDS,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

FAIRFAX COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS; THE FAIRFAX

COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD; ROBERT SPILLANE, Former

Superintendent; ALLEN LEIS, Former Director of

Personnel, then Deputy Superintendent, now

Interim Superintendent, Fairfax County Public

School System (as employees and individuals);

LOUDOUN COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS; MANASSAS CITY

PUBLIC SCHOOLS; FALLS CHURCH CITY PUBLIC

SCHOOLS; ARLINGTON COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

SAINT MARY’S COLLEGE,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District

Judge. (CA-97-1592-A)

Submitted: January 29, 1999 Decided: March 22, 1999
2

Before WILKINS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ollye Tine Snow Reynolds, Bobby O. Reynolds, Appellants Pro Se.

John Francis Cafferky, Ingo Frank Burghardt, HUNTON & WILLIAMS,

McLean, Virginia; Richard Mark Dare, Merrell B. Renaud, HAZEL &

THOMAS, P.C., Falls Church, Virginia; Martin Ritchie Crim, SMITH &

DAVENPORT, Manassas, Virginia; Carol Winfield McCoskrie, COUNTY

ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Arlington Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Ollye Tine Snow Reynolds and Bobby O. Reynolds appeal the district court’s order dismissing this action for failure to state a

claim upon which relief could be granted. We have reviewed the

record and the district court’s order and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, because the Plaintiffs failed to state a claim, we

affirm. See Reynolds v. Fairfax County Pub. Schs., No. CA-97-1592-

A (E.D. Va. July 13, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule  contains summary financial  information  extracted from Form 10-Q
for the three months ended March 31, 1999 for Hallwood Energy Partners,  L.P.and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such Form 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000768172
<NAME>                        Hallwood Energy Partners, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         5,723
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  12,294
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               19,679
<PP&E>                                         673,950
<DEPRECIATION>                                 570,247
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 133,475
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          31,693
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     60,005
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   133,475
<SALES>                                        9,866
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               9,982
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  3,233
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             818
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (318)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (318)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (318)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.12)
        

</TABLE>
# Waiver of Restriction on Providing Funds to the Palestinian Authority

# Memorandum for the Secretary of State

October 6, 2008

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 650(b) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2008 (Division J, Public Law 110-161) (the “Act”), as carried forward under section 1417 of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-252) (the “Supplemental”), I hereby certify that it is important to the national security interests of the United States to waive the provisions of section 650(a) of the Act, as carried forward under the Supplemental, in order to provide funds appropriated for fiscal year 2009 under the heading Economic Support Funds to the Palestinian Authority.

                    You are directed to transmit this determination to the Congress, with a report pursuant to section 650(d) of the Act, as carried forward under the Supplemental, and to publish the determination in the                     **Federal Register**                    .                

[FR Doc. E8-24590

Billing code 4710-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       4,856,404
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         137,893
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                129,944,977
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      39,100,926
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        38,838,247
<LOANS>                                    177,726,430
<ALLOWANCE>                                  1,800,192
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             363,302,107
<DEPOSITS>                                 238,636,037
<SHORT-TERM>                                65,163,809
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          4,715,024
<LONG-TERM>                                 30,250,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        15,498
<OTHER-SE>                                  24,521,739
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             363,302,107
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              9,861,072
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            7,381,812
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 7,273
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            17,250,157
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           7,054,068
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           9,778,506
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        7,471,651
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  365,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                              26,924
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              4,767,025
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,970,099
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   2,970,099
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,970,099
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.20
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.21
<LOANS-NON>                                  1,100,917
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             1,530,257
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  117,020
<RECOVERIES>                                    21,955
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            1,800,192
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         1,800,912
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>