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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FOR UNION
NATIONAL BANCORP'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS'S ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                      14,737,200
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          44,825
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             2,311,223
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 69,051,175
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      32,389,828
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                    179,614,866
<ALLOWANCE>                                  1,808,646
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             310,170,811
<DEPOSITS>                                 229,595,147
<SHORT-TERM>                                27,826,499
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,651,559
<LONG-TERM>                                 25,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        19,652
<OTHER-SE>                                  26,077,954
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             310,170,811
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              3,765,975
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            1,629,866
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                44,567
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             5,440,408
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           1,982,254
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,576,122
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        2,864,286
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   57,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              2,398,292
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,139,401
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   830,001
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.42
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.91
<LOANS-NON>                                    195,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                   553,046
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                237,399
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             1,792,921
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   49,543
<RECOVERIES>                                     8,268
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            1,808,646
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         1,808,646
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
#### Doan, Admx., Appellant, *v.*Stout, Appellee.

(Decided May 14, 1941.)

*Messrs. Casper S Casper,*for appellant.

*Mr. Jack, Bosch,*for appellee.

By the Court.

This is an appeal on questions of law from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Butler county, sustaining a motion to quash service of summons in this case.

The first question for consideration is the appeal-ability of such an order, since this involves the juris*360diction of the court to hear and determine the case on the merits of the question.

The rule is that an appeal may be taken only from a judgment or final order. To be reviewable, it must be such an order as finally and effectually prevents a judgment. It, therefore, follows that an order of the Court of Common Pleas sustaining a motion to quash service of summons is not a final order unless such order dismisses the plaintiff’s petition upon the granting of such motion. 2 Ohio Jurisprudence, 146 *et seq.,*Section 128 *et seq.*

In the case under consideration the Court of Common Pleas made the following entry in disposing of the motion:

“This cause came on to be heard upon the defendant’s motion to quash service of summons for the reason that said service of summons was not made personally upon defendant or left at his usual place of residence, and after hearing .the evidence and argument of counsel, the court hereby sustains said motion.

“It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed that the service heretofore shown by plaintiff herein be quashed, set aside, and held for naught, and that said motion to quash service is hereby sustained and the costs herein assessed against the plaintiff.

‘ ‘ To all of which the plaintiff excepts. ’ ’

It will be noted that in the entry there is no dismissal of the petition, nor any final disposition of the case.

The plaintiff may proceed to issue an alias summons. The granting of the motion to quash is not a final order under the circumstances from which an appeal may be taken.

The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Matthews, P. J., Ross and Hamilton, JJ., concur.
#### Max Fuerman v. G. Ruchle et al.

(No. 6368.)

Appeal from Guadalupe County.

Ireland & Neal, counsel for appellant.

Burgess & Dibrell, counsel for appellees.

Opinion by

Will-son, J.

§81. *Final judgment; judgment of a justice dismissing suit for failure to give security for costs is a; appeal bond; surety on, need not be resident of county ivhere suit is pending; solvency of sureties need not be shown, when; identity of surety as a party must be shown, when.*Appellant instituted suit in justice’s court against appellees. Upon motion of appellees appellant was required to give security for the costs. In response to the requirement he deposited with the justice of the peace $25 in money. Upon motion of appellees the security was rejected, and appellant’s suit was dismissed, the judgment of the court •being that appellant take nothing by his suit and pay all *121costs; that appellees have judgment against appellant for costs, etc. Appellant appealed from said judgment to the county court, and in that court his appeal was dismissed upon motion of appellees, the grounds of said motion being: (1) Because the judgment sought to be appealed from was not a final judgment; (2) because one of the sureties on the appeal bond is one of the. persons in whose favor said judgment was rendered; and (3) because one of the sureties on said appeal bond did not reside in Guadalupe county. We are of opinion that the court erred in dismissing the appeal. It is well settled that a judgment of dismissal, such as the one rendered by the justice’s court in this case, is a final judgment. It does not appear from the record that Shanglase, one of the sureties on the appeal bond, is the same person of that name who is a party in the judgment as alleged in the motion. There is no law which requires that a surety on an appeal bond shall be a resident of the county in which the judgment appealed from was rendered, or which requires that the solvency of such a surety should be shown by certificate or other evidence. The justice of the peace approved the bond, and it must be presumed that he was satisfied that the sureties were solvent.

April 19, 1890.

Beversed and remanded.
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1003

AN ACT

To amend the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring 

Act of 1998 to reauthorize the United States Advisory 

Commission on Public Diplomacy.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 1003 EH

1 SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF UNITED STATES ADVI2 SORY COMMISSION ON PUBLIC DIPLOMACY. 

3 Section 1334 of the Foreign Affairs Reform and Re4 structuring Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6553) is amended by 

5 striking ‘‘October 1, 2006’’ and inserting ‘‘October 1, 

6 2009’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives March 13, 

2007. 

Attest:

Clerk. 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1003

AN ACT

To amend the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restrucmacy. States Advisory Commission on Public Diplo- turing Act of 1998 to reauthorize the United
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**EXCHANGE
      ACT RULE 15D-14(B) AND**


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








In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of U.S. Dry Cleaning Corporation
      (the ”Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2006, as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Haddon B. Libby, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
      certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 15d-14(b)
      and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes
      Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





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





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to U.S. Dry Cleaning Corporation and will
      be
      retained by U.S. Dry Cleaning Corporation and furnished to the Securities and
      Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.








By:
            /s/
                Haddon B. LibbyName:
            Haddon
                B. LibbyTitle:
            Chief
                Financial OfficerDate:
            October
                25, 2006
#### Linda Ann KINCHEN v. CITY OF SHREVEPORT.

No. 2011-C-2262.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 2, 2011.

In re City of Shreveport; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Office of Workers’ Compensation District 1W, No. 08-21495; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,490-WCA.

Granted.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1384 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1384

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 118 Minner Avenue in Bakersfield, California, as the ``Buck Owens 
                             Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. BUCK OWENS POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 118 Minner Avenue in Bakersfield, California, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Buck Owens Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Buck Owens 
Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 30, 2007.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1384

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 118 Minner Avenue in Bakersfield, California, as the ``Buck Owens 
                             Post Office''.
```
#### Beverly A. BLAKE, Jamarcus Blake and Natasha Valley v. Dr Warren MALEY. Medical Malpractice Matter Of Barry Blake (D) PCF No.2009-01115.

No. 2011-C-0602.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 29, 2011.

In re Blake, Beverly A.; —Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. C, Nos. 535,808-C, 536,673; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Nos. 46,036-CA, 46,037-CA.

Denied.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 186 (Monday, September 27, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59326-59327]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24111]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Eighth Meeting--RTCA Special Committee 220: Automatic Flight 
Guidance and Control

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of RTCA Special Committee 220: Automatic Flight Guidance 
and Control meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a 
meeting of RTCA Special Committee 220: Automatic Flight Guidance and 
Control.

DATES: The meeting will be held October 12-14, 2010. October 12th and 
13th from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and October 14th from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Wichita Airport Hilton, 2098 
Airport Road, Wichita, Kansas, 67209-1941, USA. telephone (316) 945-
5272, fax (316) 945-7620, e-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1258677e7b773c5a7b7e7e527a7b7e667d7c3c717d7f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="642e11080d014a2c0d0808240c0d08100b0a4a070b09">[email protected]</span></a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (1) RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, 
NW., Suite 805, Washington, DC, 20036; telephone (202) 833-9339; fax 
(202) 833-9434; Web site http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice 
is hereby given for a Special Committee 220: Automatic Flight Guidance 
and Control meeting. The agenda will include:
    <bullet> Welcome/Agenda Overview.
    <bullet> Consider for Approval--New Document--Minimum Operational 
Performance Standards (MOPS) for Automatic Flight Guidance and Control 
Systems and Equipment, RTCA Paper No. 088-10/SC220-016.
    <bullet> Continue Development of Installation Guidance White 
Papers.
    <bullet> Wrap-up and Review of Action Items.
    <bullet> Establish Dates, Location, Agenda for Next Meeting.
    <bullet> Other Business.
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairmen, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present 
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may 
present a written statement to the committee at any time.


[[Page 59327]]


    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 17, 2010.
Robert L. Bostiga,
RTCA Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 2010-24111 Filed 9-24-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
News United States Air Force
 Crosstalks aimed at improving KC-135 servicePublished March 28, 2016
                        
                        By Maj. Jon Quinlan
                        
                        
                        507th Air Refueling Wing Public Affairs
                **TINKER AIR FORCE BASE, Okla. (AFNS) --**
                Experts from the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, the Air Force Reserve, National Guard Bureau and the Legacy Tanker Division conducted a customer support visit here and at two other bases March 14-18 to listen to unit concerns regarding KC-135 Stratotanker support and logistics.
The team, headed by Maj. Gen. Glenn Davis, the mobilization assistant to the AFLCMC commander, also traveled to Birmingham Air National Guard Base, Alabama, and Grissom Air Reserve Base, Indiana, with airlift provided by the 507th Air Refueling Wing here.
According to William R. Barnes, the deputy chief of the Legacy Tanker Division here, the purpose of the visit was simple.
"We want to enhance aircraft availability," Barnes said. "It's all about getting more iron on the ramp."
The team of nearly 30 logistics, maintenance, acquisitions and engineering experts discussed topics including supply rate times, sustaining engineering, product support management and part transportation.
According to Davis, the open and frank discussions were beneficial as there sometimes can be a disconnect between metrics viewed at major commands versus what’s going on at the ground level in operational units.
"Our goal is to get out to the units, to hear what needs to be heard and then do something about it," Davis said. "These visits allow us the luxury of interacting directly with the units because the Airmen in the units are going to have really good ideas."
During the Tinker AFB visit, members of the 507th Maintenance Group identified specific maintenance issues to discuss and provided hands-on tours of various back shops, as well as tours of the jets. Having the subject-matter experts on the ground allowed for real-time discussions and solutions to be implemented immediately.
Visiting the base in person, Davis said, proved to be more productive than a teleconference.
"It was great to have the face-to-face interaction so I could put a face with a name," he said. "It helped us to get a better understanding of the concerns of maintenance professionals at the units."
Other agencies involved in the visits included the Defense Logistics Agency, Air Force Sustainment Center, Oklahoma City Air Logistics Complex and Air Mobility Command.
The Reserve 507th Maintenance Group commander, Col. Travis Caughlin, said that the partnerships built during these visits are very important to KC-135 operations and the unit is always happy to assist.
The partnerships and plans built by these visits will ensure that the nearly 60-year-old KC-135 is flying well beyond 2030, Barnes said.Tinker AFB 



KC-135 



Reserve 



guard 



Air Force Life Cycle Management Center
#### Dr. and Mrs. Wayne PIERCE, et al. v. JESUIT HIGH SCHOOL.

No. 2010-CC-2417.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 17, 2010.

In re Jesuit High School; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court Div. K, No. 07-14877; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-C-1156.

Denied.

VICTORY and WEIMER, JJ., would grant.
EX-10.14.11 - Agreement dated February 21, 2001 regarding extension of maturity


                                                               February 21, 2001

Mr. James Q. Chau, Managing Member
Encore Capital Management, L.L.C.
12007 Sunrise Valley Drive, Suite 460
Reston, Virginia 20191

Dear Mr. Chau:

Thank you for your willingness to extend the due date for the three million
dollars ($3,000,000.00) principal on Convertible Debentures agreement issued by
Eurotech to JNC Opportunity Fund, Ltd. The following are terms agreeable to
EUROTECH, Ltd. that have been orally agreed upon between us are formally
proposed as amendments to the outstanding Debentures:


         That the Convertible Debenture with original due date of February 23,
                 2001 be extended one year to February 23, 2002.

         That other terms and conditions of the Convertible Debenture remain as
                 agreed in previous agreements and are likewise extended to
                 February 23, 2002.


Your cooperation is greatly appreciated as it continues to be vital to EUROTECH,
Ltd. success in delivering EKOR.

Sincerely,


/S/ Don V. Hahnfeldt
-------------------------
Don V. Hahnfeldt
President, EUROTECH, Ltd.

Agreed and accepted by:



James Q. Chau, Encore Capital Management, L.L.C./ date
<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 The Cronos Group (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), the undersigned, Dennis J
Tietz, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Peter J Younger, the
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, based on their knowledge, that:

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

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

         November 12, 2003

         /s/ DENNIS J TIETZ
         Dennis J Tietz, Chief Executive Officer

         /s/ PETER J YOUNGER
         Peter J Younger, 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.

----------
* This certification, required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
other than as required by Section 906, is not deemed to be "filed" with the
Commission or subject to the rules and regulations promulgated by the Commission
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or to the liabilities of
Section 18 of said Act.

                                                                            E119
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-30002

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

HERMAN TURLICH, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:02-CR-212-1

Before BENAVIDES, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Herman Turlich, Jr., appeals from the judgment of the district court

revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to 24 months of

imprisonment. He argues that the district court erred by revoking his

supervised release instead of ordering him into a drug treatment program.

The district court permissibly found that Turlich possessed and used

controlled substances. See United States v. Smith, 978 F.2d 181, 182 (5th Cir.

1992). Unless the district court found that he was eligible to be ordered into

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 1, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 11-30002 Document: 00511590279 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/01/2011
No. 11-30002

drug treatment under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d), revocation of supervised release was

mandatory. § 3583(g)(1). Turlich committed numerous violations of the terms

of his supervised release, twice testing positive for drug use, twice failing to

report to his probation officer, and incurring a state court conviction of simple

criminal damage to property. He did not merely fail a drug test. The district

court did not err by finding that no exception was warranted pursuant to

§ 3583(d). Because the district court did not apply the exception, the mandatory

revocation of supervised release was not an abuse of discretion. United States

v. Grandlund, 71 F.3d 507, 509 (5th Cir. 1995).

AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 11-30002 Document: 00511590279 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/01/2011