alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32





Certification of Periodic Report


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350


As adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002




Pursuant to, and for purposes only of, 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned hereby certify that (i) the Annual Report of Shore Bancshares, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Shore Bancshares, Inc.




Date:      March 15, 2011
/s/ W. Moorhead VermilyeW. Moorhead VermilyeChief Executive OfficerDate:      March 15, 2011
/s/ Susan E. LeavertonSusan E. Leaverton, CPATreasurer/Principal Accounting Officer
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1549 

To use data from school years preceding the Gulf hurricane disasters for 

purposes of determining allotments under title III of the Higher Education Act of 1965 to institutions impacted by those disasters. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 15, 2007 

Mr. JINDAL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To use data from school years preceding the Gulf hurricane 

disasters for purposes of determining allotments under 

title III of the Higher Education Act of 1965 to institutions impacted by those disasters. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘College and University 

5 Hurricane Revitalization Act of 2007’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 The Congress finds that the following: 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1549 IH

1 (1) Hurricane Katrina struck the United States 

2 Gulf Coast on August 29, 2005, causing widespread 

3 flooding and significant property and infrastructure 

4 damage to the colleges and universities in Louisiana, 

5 Mississippi, and Alabama. 

6 (2) On September 24, 2005, Hurricane Rita 

7 struck near the border between Texas and Lou8 isiana, causing further damage in eastern Texas and 

9 western Louisiana. 

10 (3) In New Orleans alone, enrollment suddenly 

11 decreased at colleges and universities by more than 

12 30 percent, revenue losses exceeded $300 million, 

13 and property losses were approximately $1 billion. 

14 (4) Although valuable assistance has been pro15 vided, without addressing the next five-year funding 

16 allocation calculation, the colleges and universities 

17 will be severely restricted financially to the point of 

18 risking their financial viability and dramatically de19 laying their future recovery. 

20 SEC. 3. CALCULATION. 

21 For the purpose of calculating the allotments of 

22 grants to institutions of higher education located in a par23 ish or county for which the President declared a major 

24 disaster exists in accordance with section 401 of the Rob25 ert T. Stafford Disaster Relief Emergency Assistance Act 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
3 

•HR 1549 IH

1 (42 U.S.C. 4170) related to Hurricanes Katrina or Rita, 

2 the Secretary of Education shall, for the 2007–2012 cycle 

3 under title III of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 

4 U.S.C. 1051 et seq.), consider data from the school year 

5 immediately preceding the school year which included Au6 gust 29, 2005, rather than current school year data for 

7 any institution of higher education that submits a written 

8 request to the Secretary for such consideration. The Sec9 retary shall notify each institution of higher education lo10 cated in such a parish or county of the provisions of this 

11 section. 

Æ 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
**Exhibit 21.01**

 

**SUBSIDIARIES OF KEYNOTE SYSTEMS, INC.**

 

Velogic, Inc., a California corporation 

 

Big Red Acquisition Corporation, a Delaware corporation 

 

Envision Acquisition Corporation, a Delaware corporation

 

Keynote Europe Limited, a corporationorganized under the laws of the England 

 

OnDevice Acquisition Corporation, a Delaware corporation 

 

NetMechanic, Inc., a Delaware corporation 

 

Keynote Canada, a corporation organized under the laws of Canada 

 

NetRaker Corporation 

 

Hudson Williams, Inc. 

 

Vividence Corporation
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF DISH, LTD. AS OF AND FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31,
1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO THOSE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           3,227
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   84,226
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,673
<INVENTORY>                                     34,643
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               136,991
<PP&E>                                         614,064
<DEPRECIATION>                                  99,049
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 736,750
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          483,044
<BONDS>                                        553,650
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (322,408)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   736,750
<SALES>                                        209,429<F1>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               214,024
<CGS>                                          133,987<F2>
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  230,709
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                17,871
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,678
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,415<F3>
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (34,556)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       171
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (34,727)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (34,727)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 (34,727)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (34,727)
<FN>
<F1>Includes sales of programming.
<F2>Includes costs of programming.
<F3>Net of amounts capitalized.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE ex rel. Michael John SOPCZAK v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-1181.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 20, 2011.

In re Sopczak, Michael John; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedi*975al Writs, Parish of Livingston, 21st Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 18997; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 010 KW 0149.

Denied.
#### Marquces JOHNSON v. Terry TERRELL, Warden.

No. 2011-KP-1804.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 20, 2012.

In re State of Louisiana; — Other; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. N, No. 10-686; to the *1279Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 11-KH-414.

Granted. A review of the guilty plea colloquy reveals that relator entered into a plea agreement which called for deferred sentencing but also provided for an increase in the terms of imprisonment in the event that relator did not appear for imposition of sentence when scheduled. Relator failed to appear as scheduled and the trial court thereafter imposed increased sentences in conformity with the plea agreement. Accordingly, the ruling of the court of appeal granting relator’s application for post-conviction relief and ordering his sentences vacated is reversed and the case is remanded to the court of appeal to consider relator’s request for an out-of-time appeal. *See State v. Counterman,*475 So.2d 336 (La.1985); see also La. C.Cr.P. art. 881.2.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Charles R. LEE.

No. 2011-K-1440.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 16, 2011.

In re Lee, Charles R.; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Tammany, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 476107; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KA 2164.

Denied.
| Subsidiaries                                                  |   | Country of Incorporation |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------|
| Cactus Argentina S.A.                                         |   | Argentina                |
| Futuros y Opciones.Com S.A.                                   |   | Argentina                |
| IRSA Inversiones y Representaciones Sociedad Anónima     |   | Argentina                |
| BrasilAgro Companhia Brasileira de Propiedades Agrícolas |   | Brasil                   |
| Exportaciones Agroindustriales Argentinas S.A.                |   | Argentina                |
| Northagro S.A.                                                |   | Argentina                |
| Pluriagro S.A.                                                |   | Argentina                |
| Agrotech S.A.                                                 |   | Argentina                |
| FyO Trading S.A.                                              |   | Argentina                |
| Helmir S.A.                                                   |   | Uruguay                  |
| Agropecuaria Acres del Sur S.A.                               |   | Bolivia                  |
| Ombú Agropecuaria S.A.                                   |   | Bolivia                  |
| Yatay Agropecuaria S.A.                                       |   | Bolivia                  |
| Yuchán Agropecuaria S.A.                                 |   | Bolivia                  |
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Chrisagon NICHOLLS.

No. 2012-KK-0586.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 20, 2012.

In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial *1276Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. J, No. 494-007; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-1723.

Denied.
<PAGE>
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C.  20549
                                     FORM 10-Q/A

             [X] QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)
                   OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
                   FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED APRIL 4, 1999

                                          OR

             [ ] TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTON 13 OR 15(d)
                   OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
                   FOR THE TRANSITION PERIOD FROM ____ TO _____

                      COMMISSION FILE NUMBER 0-23808

                           METROTRANS CORPORATION
         (Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)

         GEORGIA                                            58-1393777
  (State of Incorporation)                              (I.R.S. Employer
                                                        Identification No.)

               777 GREENBELT PARKWAY, GRIFFIN, GEORGIA  30223
     (Address of principal executive offices, including zip code)

                            (770) 229-5995
        (Registrant's telephone number, including area code)

                              ________________

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant (1) has filed all reports
required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 during the preceding twelve months (or for such shorter period
that Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been
subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.  Yes X  No___

Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer's classes
of common stock as of the latest practicable date:

            Class                           Outstanding at May 19, 1999

Common Stock, $.01 Par Value                       4,129,737 shares

                              Page 1 of 4

</PAGE>





<PAGE>
Item 6.  Exhibits and Reports on Form 8-K

   (a)  The following exhibits are filed with this report:

27  Financial Data Schedule

                                       2
</PAGE>







<PAGE>
                             SIGNATURE

     Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned thereunto duly authorized.

                                         METROTRANS CORPORATION
                                         (Registrant)



     Date: May 25, 1999                   By:/s/ Henry J. Murphy
                                          Henry J. Murphy
                                          Interim Chief Executive Officer
                                          (Principal Executive Officer
                                           and Principal Financial
                                           and Accounting Officer)


                                       3
</PAGE>




<PAGE>
                                  INDEX OF EXHIBITS


Exhibit No.

27  Financial Data Schedule
                                       4
</PAGE>
**Exhibit
      23**





CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
      333-126822 on Form S-3 of our report dated March 2, 2006, relating to the
      financial statements (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes
      an explanatory paragraph relating to the change in the method of accounting
      for
      asset retirement obligations to conform with the FASB Interpretation No. 47,
      “Accounting for Conditional Asset Retirement Obligations” in 2005) and financial
      statement schedules of South Jersey Gas Company appearing in the Annual Report
      on Form 10-K of South Jersey Gas Company for the year ended December 31,
      2005.








/s/
      Deloitte & Touche LLP


Philadelphia,
      Pennsylvania


March
      2,
      2006
#### Claudeth STEWART and Shawn Stewart, Petitioners, v. Denzil CORMACK and Jenoris Cormack, Respondents.

No. 4D10-1058.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 4, 2010.

Robert J. Hauser of Beasley Hauser Kramer Leonard & Galardi, P.A., West Palm Beach, and John P. Marinelli of Law Offices of John P. Marinelli, LLC, West Palm Beach, for petitioners.

Denzil Cormack and Jenoris Edwards Cormack, Loganville, Georgia, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of prohibition is hereby denied.

POLEN and FARMER, JJ., concur.

WARNER, J., dissents with opinion.

WARNER, J.,

dissenting with opinion.

I would consider this petition for writ of prohibition as an appeal pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(4). As such, I would find that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to consider the motion to determine rents filed after the summary judgment had been entered and respondents’ time for filing a motion for rehearing or to amend had passed. I would reverse on the authority of *Garcia v. Stewart,*906 So.2d 1117 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Nevertheless, because the majority has not ruled on the merits but simply denied the petition, it would appear that petitioners are not barred from asserting further jurisdictional objections to any final order entered on this supplemental pleading.
583 A.2d 314

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ANTON NELSON.

January 23, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
IIB 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1675 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 25, 2007 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 

Urban Affairs 

AN ACT 

To suspend the requirements of the Department of Housing 

and Urban Development regarding electronic filing of 

previous participation certificates and regarding filing 

of such certificates with respect to certain low-income 

housing investors. 

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

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

HR 1675 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Preservation Approval 

3 Process Improvement Act of 2007’’. 

4 SEC. 2. SUSPENSION OF ELECTRONIC FILING REQUIRE5 MENT. 

6 The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 

7 shall— 

8 (1) suspend mandatory processing of Previous 

9 Participation Certificates (form HUD–2530) under 

10 the Department of Housing and Urban Develop11 ment’s Automated Partners Performance System 

12 (APPS) and permit paper filings of such certificates 

13 until such time that the Secretary— 

14 (A) revises the December 2006 draft pro15 posed regulations under subpart H of part 200 

16 of title 24, Code of Federal Regulations, to 

17 eliminate the unnecessary burdens and dis18 incentives for program participants; and 

19 (B) submits such revised draft proposed 

20 regulations to the Committee on Financial 

21 Services of the House of Representatives and 

22 the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 

23 Urban Affairs of the Senate for review by such 

24 Committees; and 

25 (2) suspend immediately all filing requirements 

26 under the Previous Participation Certificate process 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

3 

HR 1675 RFS

1 with respect to limited liability corporate investors 

2 who own or expect to own an interest in entities 

3 which are allowed or are expected to be allowed low4 income housing tax credits under section 42 of the 

5 Internal Revenue Code of 1986. 

Passed the House of Representatives April 24, 2007. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
#### UNITED STATES of America ex rel. Lewis WOLFE, Relator-Appellant, v. J. Edwin LA VALLEE, Warden, Clinton Prison, Dannemora, New York, Respondent-Appellee.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

March 10, 1960.

Lewis Wolfe, pro se.

Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen., of the State of New York, in opposition.

Before CLARK, MOORE and FRIENDLY, Circuit Judges.

*927PER CURIAM.

Upon considering the within motion, the order below [179 F.Supp. 939] is vacated and the proceedings are remanded for the taking of such further testimony as may be offered on the question of relator’s mental condition at the time of his trial in the state court and for the filing of findings as to such condition; counsel to be assigned by the district court.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7320

BRYANT K. MCARTHUR, Petitioner - Appellant, versus MARYLAND PAROLE COMMISSION; WARDEN, Maryland Correction Institution; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-04-2223-AMD) Submitted: October 7, 2004 Decided: October 15, 2004 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bryant K. McArthur, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Bryant K. McArthur, a Maryland prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). This order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that McArthur has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
#### CENTURY 21 SHACKELFORD-FRENCH REAL ESTATE, INC. v. Willie EALY and Ezell Ealy.

No. 2011-C-1947.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 14, 2011.

*945In re Ealy, Ezell; Ealy, Willie et al.;— Defendant(s); Applying For Writ of Cer-tiorari and/or Review, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 2007-1312; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,309-CA.

Denied.
The Board of DirectorsPSS
World Medical, Inc.

|Re: | Registration
Statement File Nos. 33-80657, 33-90464, 333-15043, 333-64185, 33-85004, 33-97756,
33-99046,          33-97754, 333-30427, 333-50526, and 333-58272 on Form S-8
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With respect to the subject
registration statements, we acknowledge our awareness of the use therein of our report
dated August 13, 2003 related to our review of interim financial information.

Pursuant to Rule 436 under the
Securities Act of 1933 (the Act), such report is not considered part of a registration
statement prepared or certified by an accountant, or a report prepared or certified by an
accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.

KPMG LLP

Jacksonville, FloridaAugust
13, 2003