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

<ARTICLE>                            9

<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                            12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                        DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                    5,048
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                    6,702
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                              0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                              0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                   0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                   25,537
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                     25,425
<LOANS>                                 674,546
<ALLOWANCE>                               9,421
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          875,492
<DEPOSITS>                              620,377
<SHORT-TERM>                            158,836
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                      13,708
<LONG-TERM>                              25,000
<COMMON>                                    127
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<OTHER-SE>                               72,444
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>          875,492
<INTEREST-LOAN>                          55,050
<INTEREST-INVEST>                        11,673
<INTEREST-OTHER>                              0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                         66,723
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                       28,211
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       39,275
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                    27,448
<LOAN-LOSSES>                             1,850
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                            5
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                          24,484
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           4,688
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                              2,429
<EPS-PRIMARY>                              0.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                              0.18
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                             8.01
<LOANS-NON>                              10,248
<LOANS-PAST>                              6,224
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                         14,402
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                               0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                          8,652
<CHARGE-OFFS>                             1,878
<RECOVERIES>                              1,081
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                         9,421
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                      9,421
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                           0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                       0



</TABLE>
News United States Air Force
 Yesterday’s Air Force: The president’s pilotPublished Sept. 7, 2016
                        
                        By Air Force TV
                
                **FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS)**– During the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the president was hundreds of miles away from the nation’s capital. The pilot and crew of Air Force One made sure the president stayed safe and got where he needed to be to lead the country.
Yesterday's Air Force is a history and heritage featurette series profiling significant people and missions from the Air Force's past.9/11 



heritage 



President 



Air Force One 



YAF
News United States Air Force
 Hagel receives update on shutdown from service leadersPublished Oct. 8, 2013
                        
                        
                        American Forces Press Service
                **WASHINGTON (AFNS) --**
                The Defense Department's top leadership, including the service secretaries and service chiefs, updated Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel Oct. 7 on the impact of the ongoing government shutdown, Pentagon officials reported.
In a statement summarizing the meeting, officials said Hagel was pleased that most DOD civilians are returning to work this week, and that he thanked the service leadership for quickly implementing the guidance issued over the weekend regarding furloughs.
All of the leaders noted that despite the recall of most civilians and the resumption of many activities, critical programs and benefits remain halted, officials said. For example, they noted, the department does not have the authority to pay death gratuities for the survivors of service members killed in action -- typically, a cash payment of $100,000 paid within three days of the service member's death.
In addition, officials said, emergency funding that supports commanders on the ground and intelligence activities remains unavailable, and service leaders reported that they are further curtailing training for later deploying units -- an activity that already had been reduced due to sequestration spending cuts.
Hagel assured the service leaders that he would work closely with them to address these challenges, and support the service members and families affected by these disruptions, officials said. He expressed his continued concern for the morale and welfare of DOD's civilian employees, who have endured unprecedented uncertainty this year and suffered losses in pay, they added.
The secretary will continue to receive regular updates and review authorities to expend funds during this lapse in appropriations, the statement said.SecDEF 



government shutdown 



Hagel Related Links
        Biography - SecDef Chuck Hagel
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. J US T I N D UA NE C OR B R AY , D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 11- 30185 D. C . No . 2 : 0 8 - c r - 0 2 0 2 7 - F VS ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe E a s t e rn D i s tr i c tof W a s hi ngt on F r e d L . V a n S i c kl e , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d F e brua ry21, 2012 ** B e f o r e : F E RN A N D E Z , M c K E O W N , a n dB Y B E E , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . Just i n D uane C orbrayappeal s f rom the 24 -m on th sent ence i m po se d f ol l ow i ng the r e voc a t i on of s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 , a n dw e a f f irm . 

# FI LED MA R 05 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 30185 2 C o rb r a yc o n te n d s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt p r o c e d u r a llye rr e db yf a ilin g to c a lc u la te th e ap p lic ab le S e n te n c in g G u id e lin e s r a n g e . T h is c o n te n tio n la c k s m e r it a s the r e c or d r e f

l e c t s tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourta dopt e d the undi s put e d G ui de l i ne s r a nge c a l c ul a t e d i n the pe t i t i on t o r e voke s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e , a nd pr ovi de d s uf f i c i e nt r e a s o n s f o rim p o s in g as e n te n c e a t th e s ta tu to rym a x im u m . See U ni ted States v. Ca r ty , 5 2 0 F .3 d9 8 4 , 9 9 3 ( 9 th C ir .2 0 0 8 ) . C o rb r a ya ls o c o n te n d s th a t th e s e n te n c e im p o s e dis s u b s ta n tiv e ly unr e a s onabl e . T he s e nt e nc e i s s ubs t a nt i ve l yr e a s onabl e unde rthe t ot a l i tyof the c ir c u m s ta n c e s a n din lig h t o f th e s e n te n c in g f

a c to r s s e t f

o rth in 1 8 U .S .C . § § 3 5 5 3 ( a ) a n d3 5 5 3 ( e ) . See G al l v. U ni ted States , 5 5 2 U .S . 3 8 , 5 1 ( 2 0 0 7 ) ; U ni ted States v. Mi qb el , 4 4 4 F .3 d1 1 7 3 , 1 1 8 2 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . AF F I RME D.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       8,339,690
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,535,734
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (295,840)
<INVENTORY>                                  2,606,980
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            14,437,081
<PP&E>                                       5,204,394
<DEPRECIATION>                             (2,005,766)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              18,428,016
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,002,478
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         10
<COMMON>                                       104,487
<OTHER-SE>                                  16,153,581
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                18,428,016
<SALES>                                      1,802,778
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,802,778
<CGS>                                        1,093,068
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,093,068
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,525,370
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,599
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,797,234)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,797,234)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,797,234)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.176)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.176)
        

</TABLE>
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1509 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend the 

subpart F exemption for active financing income. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 13, 2007 

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts (for himself, Mr. CAMP of Michigan, Mr. CANTOR, 

Mr. CROWLEY, Mr. DAVIS of Alabama, Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania, 

Mr. HERGER, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. LARSON of Connecticut, 

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mr. 

POMEROY, Mr. RAMSTAD, Mrs. JONES of Ohio, and Mr. WELLER of Illinois) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently 

extend the subpart F exemption for active financing income. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT SUBPART F EXEMPTION FOR AC4 TIVE FINANCING INCOME. 

5 (a) BANKING, FINANCING, OR SIMILAR BUSI6 NESSES.—Subsection (h) of section 954 of the Internal 

7 Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to special rule for income 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•HR 1509 IH

1 derived in the active conduct of banking, financing, or 

2 similar businesses) is amended by striking paragraph (9). 

3 (b) INSURANCE BUSINESSES.—Subsection (e) of sec4 tion 953 of such Code (relating to exempt insurance in5 come) is amended by striking paragraph (10) and by re6 designating paragraph (11) as paragraph (10). 

7 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

8 this section shall apply to taxable years of a foreign cor9 poration beginning after the date of the enactment of this 

10 Act, and to taxable years of United States shareholders 

11 with or within which such taxable years of such foreign 

12 corporation end. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
080306-F-JZ511-827.JPG
            MAJOR GENERAL THOMAS R. RAMPYThomas Randall Rampy was born in Bell County, Texas in 1897. He graduated from Salado College, Salado, Texas in 1915. 

Prior to entering the military service, his experience was primarily in the fields of accounting and procurement with industrial engineering and construction organizations, including Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation, Boston Mass.; United Engineers and Constructors, Philadelphia, Pa.; the Federal Public Works Administration; and Maxon Construction Company in Dayton, Ohio. From 1941 to 1943 General Rampy was a civilian accountant with the Army Air Forces at Washington, D.C. 

Commissioned a lieutenant colonel in the Army of the United States on Feb. 8, 1943, General Rampy was assigned to active duty as chief of the Contract Audit Division, Headquarters Army Air Forces, Washington, D.C. In December 1946 he was detailed to serve as chief of the Industrial Division, Army Audit Agency, in the Office of the Chief of Finance. 

In July 1948 General Rampy was designated the first auditor general of the U.S. Air Force at Washington, D.C. For the month of June 1951 he was assigned additional duty as the first director of accounting, Headquarters U.S. Air Force. He moved to Philadelphia, Pa., in May 1952, continuing his assignment as auditor general, U.S. Air Force. 

Transferring to the U.S. Air Forces in Europe in May 1954, General Rampy became deputy chief of staff, Comptroller, at USAFE headquarters in Wiesbaden, Germany. 

His decorations include the Legion of Merit. 

(Up to date as of June 1956)
|   | (1) | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934;and |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| Date:      November 16, 2009 | By:                                                                      | /s/ Thomas      Seifert |
|------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------|
|                         | Thomas      Seifert                                                                |
|                         | Chief      Financial Officer (Principal      Accounting and Financial Officer |

----
#### St. Louis, A. & T. R’y Co. v. J. J. Pickens.

(No. 3253.)

Appeal from Hopkins County.

Leach & Templeton and Perkins, Gilbert & Perkins, counsel for appellant.

No counsel appeared for appellee.

Opinion by

Will-son, J.

§ 85. *Pleading and evidence; variance in, held immaterial; value of animal, when the measure of damages claimed, must be proved.*Appellee recovered judgment against appellant for $165 damages for one cow and one calf, alleged to have been killed by appellant’s engine and train. Appellee’s petition alleged that the calf was an Ayrshire calf, and the evidence showed it was three-fourths Ayrshire and one-fourth Durham. This was not a material variance between allegation and proof. This is the second appeal in this case. On the former appeal the judgment was reversed because there was not sufficient proof of the value of the calf. On this appeal the judgment must be reversed for the same cause. It appears from the evidence that at the place where the calf was killed there was no market for such animals, but *55that there was a market for them at Longview, which was the nearest market; and yet it was not proved what such an animal was worth in said market, nor was any other legal evidence adduced of the value of said animal. There was some evidence as to the market value of thoroughbred calves in the market at Shreveport, but none as to the value of mixed-blood calves of the age of the one in controversy. It devolved upon appellee to prove the value of the cattle killed, as this was the measure of his damage. There being no market for such animals as the calf at the place where it was killed, its value could have been shown by proof of the market value of animals of a similar kind in the nearest market, which, as the evidence shows, was the Longview market. This proof was not made or attempted to be made. [3 Civil Cas. Ct. App., §398; 2 Civil Cas. Ct. App., § 643.]

December 7, 1889.

Reversed and remanded.
#### Frank FRAZIER, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 5D12-2198.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

July 13, 2012.

Frank Frazier, Sneads, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General Tallahassee, and Wesley Heidt, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for belated appeal is granted. A copy of this opinion shall be filed with the trial court and be treated as the notice of appeal from the judgment and sentence in case no. 11-000140-CFMA, in the Circuit Court in and for St. Johns County, Florida. *See*Fla. R.App. P. 9.141(c)(6)(D).

GRANT PETITION.

ORFINGER, C.J., PALMER and LAWSON JJ., concur.
f10k2008ex10vi_sinoenergy.htm


    Exhibit
10.6

     

    
      《CNG System Special
Integration Technology, Software, and Gas Combustion Technology Production Usage
Permit Contract B》Complementary
Protocol

      


      Party A:  Beijing Sanhuan Technology
Development Co., Ltd (Beijing Sanhuan)

      
        Party B: Qingdao Sinogas General Machinery Limited Corporation (“Sinogas”)

      

      
        


      

      
        According
to the 《CNG
System Special Integration Technology, Software, and Gas Combustion Technology
Production Usage Permit Contract B》signed by both
party A and party B on the 26th of
March 2007, Party A grants Party B the permit in using the “CNG system special
integration technology, software, and gas combustion technology
production”.

         

      

      Due to
the uncertainty in making the term of the permit granted by the previous
contract, Party A and Party B have made an agreement on a few complementary
items to the previous contract, listed below:

       “
3. the period of validity of this usage permit is ten years, valid from 27th, March
2007, expired at 26th,
March,2017.”
This shall be added to “the third clause: grant usage permit” of the previous
contract.

      


      This
complementary protocol has the same effectiveness as the original
contact

      


      Party A: Beijing Sanhuan Technology Development
Co., Ltd (Beijing Sanhuan)

      


      Representative:

      Date:2008-12-19

      


      
        Party B: Qingdao Sinogas General Machinery
Limited Corporation (“Sinogas”)

      

      


      Representative:

      Date:2008-12-19
1 The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, sitting by designation. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 08-3291

__________ National Labor Relations Board, * * Petitioner, * * Allied Workers International Union; * Local No. 74B Glass, Molders * Pottery, Plastics, * On Application for * Enforcement of an Order of the Interveners, * National Labor Relations Board. * v. * [UNPUBLISHED] * Whitesell Corporation, * * Respondent. *

___________ Submitted: June 9, 2009 Filed: June 25, 2010

___________ Before SMITH and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges, and LIMBAUGH, 1 District Judge. PER CURIAM. The National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “the Board”) has applied for enforcement of its order finding that Whitesell Corporation (“Whitesell”) violated-2- various provisions of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 151- 69, while negotiating a new collective-bargai ning agreement with the Glass, Molders, Pottery, Plastics, and Allied Workers International Union, AFL-CIO. The Board’s order was entered by two members of a three-member group to which the Board delegated all its powers in December 2007 pursuant to section 3(b) of the NLRA, 29 U.S.C. § 153(b). When the order was en tered on August 29, 2008, the five-member Board had only two members. In New Process Steel, L.P. v. NLRB , 560 U.S. ___, 2010 WL 2400089 (June 17, 2010), the Supreme Court held that a two-member group may not exercise delegated authority when the total Board membership falls be low three because“the delegation clause [in section 3(b)] re quires that a delegee group maintain a membership of three in order to exercise the delegated authority of the Board.” Id. at *8. Accordingly, we deny the NLRB’s application for enforcement.

___________________________
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Winston Hotels, Inc.
(the Company) for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Joseph
V. Green, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 results of operations of the Company. /s/ Joseph V. GreenName:
    
    Joseph V. GreenTitle:
    
    Chief Financial OfficerDate:
    
    November 8, 2004
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 50081 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

STEVE MAURICE TYLER

,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:16

- CR

- 128

- 5

Before JONES, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Steve Maurice Tyler has moved for

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California

, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).
Tyler h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counse l’s brief and the
relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s
assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 20, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-50081 Document: 00514280273 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/20/2017No. 17

- 50081

2 Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is

excus ed from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 17-50081 Document: 00514280273 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/20/2017