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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                    MAR-31-1997             MAR-31-1996
<CASH>                                  702                     734
<SECURITIES>                          5,336                   7,672
<RECEIVABLES>                        14,231                  15,728
<ALLOWANCES>                            676                     250
<INVENTORY>                           4,129                   2,473
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     27,224                  26,849
<PP&E>                               19,423                  14,572
<DEPRECIATION>                        7,482                   4,261
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       48,024                  44,310
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                12,879                  14,897
<BONDS>                               3,213                   2,397
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0                       0
<PREFERRED>                               0                       0
<COMMON>                                 80                      79
<OTHER-SE>                           29,344                  26,937
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         48,024                  44,310
<SALES>                               7,441                   7,872
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     17,661                  17,227
<CGS>                                 5,488                   5,672
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        12,682                  12,495
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                      3,429                   3,334
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        676                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       1,509                   1,398
<INCOME-TAX>                            549                     489
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     980                     907
<DISCONTINUED>                            0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0                       0
<CHANGES>                                 0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                            980                     907
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           .12                     .12
<EPS-DILUTED>                           .12                     .11
        

</TABLE>
No. 11,674.

#### The State *v.*Schreiber.

Criminax. *Law.*— Indictment.— Venue.— *Certainty.*— An indictment in the Bartholomew Circuit Court, which charges that the offence was com*185raitted in Bartholomew comity, Indiana, shows the venue with sufficient certainty.

From the Bartholomew Circuit Court.

*F. T. Hord,*Attorney General, *W. Dixon,*Prosecuting Attorney, and *W. B. Hord,*for the State.

Niblack, J.

Indictment for unlawfully selling intoxicating liquor on Sunday. The court, regarding the indictment as insufficient, sustained a motion to quash it and discharged the defendant.

The caption and body of the indictment was as follows:

> *“*The State of Indiana, Bartholomew County, ss :

> *“*Bartholomew Circuit Court. November Term, 1883.

> *“State of Indiana*v. *August Schreiber.*Indictment for selling intoxicating liquor on Sundays

> “ The grand jury of Bartholomew county, in the State of Indiana, on their oath present that one August Schreiber, late of said county, on the 25th day of November, 1883, said day being then and there the first day of the week commonly called Sunday, did, in Bartholomew county, Indiana, unlawfully sell to one Martin Pfeiffer, at and for the price of five cents, a less quantity than a quart at a time, to wit, one gill of intoxicating liquor, to be drunk then and there as a beverage/* We have no brief from the appellee, and there is nothing either in the record, or otherwise before us, stating the ground upon which the indictment was quashed. Our unaided examination of the indictment disclosets to us no substantial insufficiency in any of its averments] The venue might have been more formally laid, but, taking into view the whole face of the indictment, it is sufficiently obvious that the alleged offence was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the Bartholomew Circuit Court, and that, under our criminal code, is sufficient upon the question of venue. R. S. 1881, section 1755; Moore Crim. Law, section 165; *State*v. *Slocum,*8 Blackf. 315; *State*v. *Paine,*1 Ind. 163; *Evarts*v. *State,*48 Ind. 422; *Long*v. *State,*56 Ind. 133.

*186Filed Nov. 11, 1884.

In any event, the charge that intoxicating liquor was sold “in Bartholomew county, Indiana,” ought to be construed as meaning, in common parlance,'independently of what preceded it, that the sale was made in Bartholomew county, *in the State of*Indiana, and was hence sufficiently certain as to the venue.

The judgment is reversed, with costs, and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
EX-4.13












Exhibit 4.13



The following is a summary of amendments to the Ford Motor Company Tax-Efficient Savings Plan for
Hourly Employees, effective January 1, 2009:





	 	•	 	Rollover amounts will be included in determining the $3,500 threshold for
involuntary distribution of assets in a Member’s account following termination of
employment.
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-50753

Summary Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DAVID LEE QUINLAN,

 Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. A-91-CR-76 (3)

- - - - - - - - - -

April 2, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

David Lee Quinlan appeals from the district court's order

denying his motion to reduce his prison term, filed pursuant to

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). He argues that his “career offender”

sentence is now illegal under United States v. Bellazerius, 24

F.3d 698 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 375 (1994). This

challenge is barred by a provision in his plea agreement by which

he waived his right to challenge his sentence in “any postconviction proceeding.” See United States v. Wilkes, 20 F.3d

651, 653 (5th Cir. 1994). Quinlan also argues, for the first 
No. 95-50753

-2-

time on appeal, that the statute under which he was convicted, 21

U.S.C. § 846, is unconstitutional. This argument is frivolous. 

United States v. Owens, 996 F.2d 59, 61 (5th Cir. 1993).

AFFIRMED.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Marcus CHATMAN.

No. 2012-KP-0121.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 20, 2012.

In re Chatman, Marcus Earl; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or *1271Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. 3, No. 254,741; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 47,120-KW.

Denied.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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 30, 2020

a0622 

# Order

Clerk June 30, 2020

156653(28)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 156653

COA: 337218

Kent CC: 05

- 000708

- FH

GERALD ALAN SHORT,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s F ebruary 4,

2020 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that

reconsideration of our previous order is warranted. MCR 7.311(G).
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 accompanying Quarterly Report of Targeted Genetics
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Todd E. Simpson, Vice President, Finance and Administration, Chief
Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer 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 results of operations of
      the Company.

Date:  July 28, 2005                     /s/ Todd E. Simpson
                                        ---------------------------------------
                                        Todd E. Simpson
                                        Vice President, Finance and
                                        Administration,
                                        Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and
                                        Treasurer

                                       28
<PAGE>

OWOSSO CORPORATION
EXHIBIT 11
COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                           Three Months Ended
                                                                      -------------------------------
                                                                      January 31,         January 25,
                                                                          1999               1998
<S>                                                                       <C>                  <C>    
BASIC:

Net income (loss) available for common stockholders                    $ (403,000)        $ (259,000)
                                                                       ==========         ==========

Weighted average number of common shares outstanding                    5,816,000          5,809,000
                                                                       ==========         ==========

Basic earnings (loss) per common share                                    $ (0.07)        $    (0.04)
                                                                       ==========         ==========

DILUTED:

Net income (loss) available for common stockholders                    $ (403,000)        $ (259,000)
                                                                       ==========         ==========

Weighted average number of common shares outstanding                    5,816,000          5,809,000

Dilutive effect of stock options                                                -                  -
                                                                       ----------         ----------

Weighted average number of shares outstanding                           5,816,000          5,809,000
                                                                       ==========         ==========

Diluted earnings (loss) per common share                               $    (0.07)        $    (0.04)
                                                                       ==========         ==========


</TABLE>
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1722

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 601 Banyan Trail in Boca Raton, Florida, 

as the ‘‘Leonard W. Herman Post Office’’.

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

•HR 1722 EH

1 SECTION 1. LEONARD W. HERMAN POST OFFICE. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 601 Banyan Trail in Boca 

4 Raton, Florida, shall be known and designated as the 

5 ‘‘Leonard W. Herman Post Office’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Leonard W. Herman 

10 Post Office’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 22, 2007. 

Attest:

Clerk. 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1722

AN ACT

To designate the facility of the United States PostPost Office’’. Raton, Florida, as the ‘‘Leonard W. Herman al Service located at 601 Banyan Trail in Boca
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 191 (Monday, October 4, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 61246]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24772]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of Thrift Supervision

[AC-51: OTS No. H-4729]


Kaiser Federal Financial Group, Inc., Covina, CA; Approval of 
Conversion Application

    Notice is hereby given that on September 28, 2010, the Office of 
Thrift Supervision approved the application of K-Fed Mutual Holding 
Company and Kaiser Federal Bank, Covina, California, to convert to the 
stock form of organization. Copies of the application are available for 
inspection by appointment (phone number: 202-906-5922 or e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7b2b0e191712185532151d143b342f28552f091e1a08551c140d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7a2a0f181613195433141c153a352e29542e081f1b09541d150c">[email protected]</span></a>) at the Public Reading Room, 1700 G Street, 
NW., Washington, DC 20552, and the OTS Western Regional Office, 122 W. 
John Carpenter Freeway, Suite 600, Irving, Texas 75261-9027.

    Dated: September 28, 2010.

    By the Office of Thrift Supervision.
Sandra E. Evans,
Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2010-24772 Filed 10-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6720-01-M


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



                                                                  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 2003 Annual Report of Waypoint Financial Corp. (the
"Company") as amended by this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A for the period
ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James H. Moss, Senior Executive Vice
President 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, to the best of my knowledge:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities 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.



/s/ James H. Moss
-----------------
James H. Moss,
Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



August 19, 2004



                                       8
Exhibit 31.2

Sarbanes  Oxley Section 302 Certification

I, James J. Judge, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K/A of NSTAR;
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------



|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;
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |  |  |     |  |                                                                                
|------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                    |  |  |  |    
|                    |  |  | 
|Date: April 9, 2012 |  |  |  | By: |  | /S/    JAMES J.
JUDGE                                                          
|                    |  |  |  |     |  | James J. Judge                                                                 
|                    |  |  |  |     |  | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-1785

KAREN VAN GORKOM,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DEUTSCHE BANK,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge.

(1:04-cv-02802-WDQ)

Submitted: November 15, 2007 Decided: November 20, 2007

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Karen Van Gorkom, Appellant Pro Se. Tom A. Jerman, Evelyn L.

Becker, Heejung Heidi Son, Sarah A. Goldfrank, Anne Nicole Cortina,

O’MELVENY & MYERS, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Karen Van Gorkom appeals the district court’s order

granting Defendant’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) motion to dismiss her

claims for failure to prosecute. We have reviewed the record and

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Van

Gorkom v. Deutsche Bank, No. 1:04-cv-02802-WDQ (D. Md. July 12,

2007). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
S97A0165.

#### WARE v. THE STATE.

(480 SE2d 599)

Fletcher, Presiding Justice.

The Fulton County Public Defender was appointed in March 1995 to represent Kenneth Ware on a murder charge. He filed a pro se demand for a speedy trial in August 1995 and moved for acquittal a year later based on the state’s failure to comply with his demand. On appeal, Ware contends that one attorney from the public defender’s office was appointed to represent him at his bond hearing; a different attorney was appointed to represent him at trial; and he filed his pro se petition between appointments while unrepresented by counsel. Because Ware was represented by counsel at the time he filed his pro se demand, we conclude that it was not a viable demand and affirm.

1. This Court held in *Ryan v.*Thomas1 that attorneys in a public defender’s office should be treated as members of the same law firm in evaluating claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. In that case, one attorney from the Fulton County Public Defender’s Office represented Ryan at trial; a second attorney from the same office filed the motion for new trial; and a third attorney represented Ryan on direct appeal. We granted Ryan’s application for probable cause to determine whether he was procedurally barred from raising a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel in his petition for habeas corpus. Comparing a public defender’s office to a law firm, we concluded that different attorneys from the same public defender’s office were not “new” counsel for the purpose of raising an ineffective assistance claim and that their failure to assert the ineffectiveness of another member of their office did not bar Ryan from raising the claim in his habeas corpus petition.

Following that reasoning, we hold today that attorneys in a public defender’s office are to be treated as members of a law firm in considering whether a defendant is represented by counsel. This holding means a defendant is not unrepresented merely because different attorneys from the same office represent him at different times and proceedings. We adopt this rule to prevent confusion, inconsistent defenses, and depletion of judicial resources.

*511Decided February 17, 1997.

*Johnson, Prioleau & Lynch, Theodore Johnson,*for appellant.

*Lewis R. Slaton, District Attorney, Rebecca A. Keel, Kirby Clements, Jr., Assistant District Attorneys,*for appellee.

2. A defendant who is represented by counsel does not have the right to independently conduct his own defense.2 In March 1995, a superior court judge appointed the public defender’s office to represent Ware under Uniform Superior Court Rule 29.2. That office remained counsel of record until relieved of its responsibility in March 1996. Therefore, the trial court correctly found that Ware was represented by counsel in August 1995 when he filed his pro se demand and was not entitled to acquittal based on an invalid demand for a speedy trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

1

261 Ga. 661 (409 SE2d 507) (1991).

2

*Johnson v. State,*266 Ga. 775, 779 (470 SE2d 637) (1996); *Reid v. State,*235 Ga. 378, 381 (219 SE2d 740) (1975).
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2


INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
333-57891 on Form S-4, 333-29069 on Form S-8, and 333-43291 on Form S-8 of
Crescent Operating, Inc. of our report on the consolidated financial statements
of Vornado Crescent Logistics Operating Partnership and Subsidiary dated
February 20, 2002 (March 11, 2002 as to Note 4) appearing in this Annual Report
on Form 10-K/A of Crescent Operating, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2001.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Atlanta, Georgia
January 13, 2003
<PAGE>


                                                                    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 Northfield Laboratories Inc. on Form
10-Q for the period ended August 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Steven A. Gould, M.D.,
Chief Executive Officer of Northfield Laboratories Inc., 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; and

      (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of Northfield Laboratories Inc.


Date: October 11, 2005


/s/ Steven A. Gould, M.D.
-------------------------
Steven A. Gould, M.D.
Chief Executive Officer