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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         7,256
<SECURITIES>                                   15,502
<RECEIVABLES>                                  4,275
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (660)
<INVENTORY>                                    5,184
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               33,888
<PP&E>                                         6,261
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (3,231)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 36,918
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,786
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       55
<OTHER-SE>                                     34,077
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   36,918
<SALES>                                        12,661
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               12,661
<CGS>                                          6,510
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  6,510
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               7,748
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (810)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   374
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (436)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (436)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.08)



</TABLE>
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

June 21, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

130333 Michael F. Cavanagh 

& (58) Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee

and Cross-Appellant, 

v SC: 130333 

 COA: 253407 

Dickinson CC: 02-002999-FH 

CARL RICHARD NANTELLE,

 Defendant-Appellant 

 and Cross-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 11, 2005 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The application 

for leave to appeal as cross-appellant is also considered and, pursuant to MCR 

7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE, in part, the judgment of 

the Court of Appeals and REMAND this case to the Dickinson Circuit Court for 

reinstatement of defendant’s conviction of unlawfully driving away an automobile, MCL 

750.413. At the time the police discovered the keys, they had probable cause to arrest 

defendant for operating a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The 

search was lawful as incident to a legal arrest. People v Arterberry, 431 Mich 381, 382-

385 (1988). 

l0614 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

June 21, 2006 

Clerk
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 66 (Monday, April 24, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S5564]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

              CONDEMNATION OF THE BOMBING IN OKLAHOMA CITY

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I send a resolution to the desk, and I 
ask unanimous consent that it be considered at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A resolution (S. Res. 110) expressing the sense of the 
     Senate condemning the bombing in Oklahoma City.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the immediate 
consideration of the resolution?
  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the 
resolution.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, this resolution is one that I referred to 
earlier in my comments, cosponsored by Senator Inhofe and myself, 
Senator Dole, and many other Senators.
  We are going to hotline this and ask Senators if they wish to 
cosponsor it. I very much appreciate the cooperation of the majority 
leader in allowing us to bring up this resolution. The majority leader 
has already mentioned his intentions that we vote on the resolution at 
12 o'clock tomorrow.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  

                          ____________________
```
News United States Air Force
 AF plans to accelerate defendable space with Next-Gen OPIRPublished May 4, 2018
                        
                        
                        Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs
                **WASHINGTON (AFNS)  --**
                The Air Force announced its intention to award two sole-source contracts for the Next-Generation Overhead Persistent Infrared program. 
In order to maintain space superiority over its adversaries, the Air Force is implementing rapid procurement authorities and is targeting the first Next-Gen OPIR launch in 2023. This establishes an aggressive goal of cutting four years off the current procurement process and supports the service's commitment to field new capabilities at the speed of relevance.
"As we develop these new systems, speed matters," said Secretary of the Air Force Heather Wilson. "The next generation missile warning satellite will be a pace-setter."
Next-Gen OPIR will succeed the current Space Based Infrared System by providing improved missile warning capabilities that are more survivable against emerging threats.
The first contract will be sole-sourced to Lockheed Martin Space to define requirements, create the initial design and identify and procure flight hardware for a satellite to operate in geosynchronous orbit. The second contract will be sole-sourced to Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems to define polar system requirements. 
"The next generation missile warning will be an important pace-setter for learning to speed up traditional acquisitions. This is more than just building a prototype or a low-cost system," said Dr. Will Roper, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics. "This is an important system for the nation, and to 'go for the gold' by targeting five years instead of nine years allows us to pick up the pace to defend the nation."
The Air Force is the lead agency for procuring Next-Gen OPIR satellites. The Space and Missile Systems Center's Remote Sensing Systems Directorate at Los Angeles Air Force Base, California is the acquisition program office. Today, the Air Force operates 77 satellites vital to national security that provide communications, command and control, missile warning, nuclear detonation detection, weather and GPS for the world.space 



communications 



national security 



SPEED 



satellites 



missile warning 



design 



commitment 



Los Angeles Air Force Base 



process 



goal 



OPIR 



Next-Generation Overhead Persistent Infrared program
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2918 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2918

         To designate Federal election day as a public holiday.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 12, 2014

  Mr. Sanders introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
         To designate Federal election day as a public holiday.

    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 ``Democracy Day Act of 2014''.

SEC. 2. FEDERAL ELECTION DAY AS A PUBLIC HOLIDAY.

    (a) In General.--Section 6103(a) of title 5, United States Code, is 
amended by inserting after the matter relating to Columbus Day, the 
following undesignated paragraph:
            ``Federal Election Day, the Tuesday next after the first 
        Monday in November in each even-numbered year.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 241(b) of the Help America Vote 
Act of 2002 (52 U.S.C. 20981(b)) is amended--
            (1) by striking paragraph (10); and
            (2) by redesignating paragraphs (11) through (19) as 
        paragraphs (10) through (18), respectively.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 12.2  Certification by the Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  I, Alexander Shulgin, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Yandex N.V. (the Company);  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 Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The Companys other certifying officer 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 Company 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 Company, 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)Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Companys disclosure controls and procedures and 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  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the Companys internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Companys internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The Companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Companys auditors and the audit committee of the Company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 Company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 Companys internal control over financial reporting.  Date: March 11, 2013  By:
/s/ ALEXANDER   SHULGINName:
Alexander   ShulginTitle:
Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32



IVAX Corporation

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 IVAX Corporation, a Florida corporation (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:



The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 (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 information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.



|                     |  |  |  |                                                                           
|-------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                     |  | 
|Date: August 9, 2004 |  |  |  | /s/    PHILLIP FROST,
M.D.                                                
|                     |  |  |  | Phillip Frost, M.D. Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer     
|                     |  | 
|Date: August 9, 2004 |  |  |  | /s/    THOMAS E. BEIER                                                    
|                     |  |  |  | Thomas E. Beier Senior Vice President- Finance and Chief Financial Officer



The foregoing certification is being
furnished solely 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) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.



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.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 76 (Tuesday, May 9, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S6368]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                    RECESS UNTIL 9:30 A.M. TOMORROW

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come 
before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in 
recess under the previous order.
  There being no objection, the Senate, at 8:13 p.m., recessed until 
Wednesday, May 10, 1995, at 9:30 a.m.

                          ____________________
```
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-11238

In the Matter of:

NINA WHITE-ROBINSON,

Debtor.

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

NINA WHITE-ROBINSON; MPATANISHI TAYARI GARRETT,

 Appellants,

versus

COVENTRY II DDR/TRADEMARK MONTGOMERY FARM, L.P.,

 Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:12-CV-259

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 2, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 12-11238 Document: 00512487096 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/02/2014
No. 12-11238

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, JOLLY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In this bankruptcy matter, the debtor and her attorney challenge the 

district court’s affirmance of three actions of the bankruptcy court: (1) the 

denial of the debtor’s motion for contempt that had alleged the creditor’s violation of the automatic stay; (2) the quashing of the debtor’s subpoena and ordering debtor’s attorney to pay the creditor $5,000 in sanctions; and (3) an order 

directing debtor’s lawyer to pay the creditor $20,000 in sanctions. The district 

court explained its affirmance in a thorough and well-reasoned order dated 

November 13, 2012.

We have reviewed the briefs and applicable law and have examined pertinent portions of the record. Out of an abundance of caution, we also entertained oral argument. There is no abuse of discretion or other reversible error. 

The judgment of the district court, affirming the various actions of the bankruptcy court, is AFFIRMED.

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

2

 

 Case: 12-11238 Document: 00512487096 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/02/2014
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 32

                            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 PDG Environmental, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending April 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John C.
Regan, Chief Executive Officer and 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, as amended; and

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

/s/ John C. Regan

John C. Regan
Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer

June 14, 2004

                                       17
#### AMERICANA ASSOCIATES v. BOROUGH OF FORT LEE.

Dec. 10, 1979.

Petition for certification denied.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 174 (Thursday, September 9, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 54857]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-22453]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy


Meeting of the Chief of Naval Operations Executive Panel

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Executive Panel will 
deliberate on the findings and proposed recommendations of the 
Technical Diversity Subcommittee to the CNO. The meeting will consist 
of discussions of current and future Navy strategy, plans, and policies 
regarding the utilization of technically diverse systems, primarily 
associated with information management systems.

DATES: The meeting will be held on September 30, 2010, from 9:30 a.m. 
to 12 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in CNA conference room, located at 
4825 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22311-1846.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Bree Hartlage, CNO Executive 
Panel, 4825 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22311-1846, 703-681-4907.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Individuals or interested groups may submit 
written statements for consideration by the CNO Executive Panel at any 
time or in response to the agenda of a scheduled meeting. All requests 
must be submitted to the Designated Federal Officer at the address 
detailed below.
    If the written statement is in response to the agenda mentioned in 
this meeting notice then the statement, if it is to be considered by 
the Panel for this meeting, must be received at least five days prior 
to the meeting in question.
    The Designated Federal Officer will review all timely submissions 
with the CNO Executive Panel Chairperson, and ensure they are provided 
to members of the CNO Executive Panel before the meeting that is the 
subject of this notice.
    To contact the Designated Federal Officer, write to Executive 
Director, CNO Executive Panel (N00K), 4825 Mark Center Drive, 2nd 
Floor, Alexandria, VA 22311-1846.

    Dated: September 1, 2010.
D.J. Werner
Lieutenant Commander, Office of the Judge Advocate General, U.S. Navy, 
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010-22453 Filed 9-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
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 Document Security Systems, Inc. (the *“Company* ”)
      on
      Form 10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the *“Report”* ),
      I,
      Patrick White, Chief Executive Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to
      18
      U.S.C. section1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act
      of 2002, that:





The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of the section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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


Date:
              August 14, 2006/s/ Patrick
              WhitePatrick
                White
              Chief
                Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 177 (Tuesday, September 14, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 55806]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-22841]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Eye Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Eye Institute Special Emphasis 
Panel, RO1 Epidemiology Applications.
    Date: September 29, 2010.
    Time: 2:30 p.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, NEI, 5635 Fishers Lane, 
Rockville, MD 20892. (Telephone Conference Call)
    Contact Person: Samuel Rawlings, PhD, Chief, Scientific Review 
Officer, Division of Extramural Research, National Eye Institute, 
National Institutes of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane, Suite 1300, MSC 
9300, 301-451-2020, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9fedfee8f3f6f1f8ecdff1faf6b1f1f6f7b1f8f0e9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="cbb9aabca7a2a5acb88ba5aea2e5a5a2a3e5aca4bd">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.867, 
Vision Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 8, 2010.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-22841 Filed 9-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


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