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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30,
1999.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                  JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                              7,449
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     102,497
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (4,966)
<INVENTORY>                                        26,658
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  135,442
<PP&E>                                            302,618
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (44,889)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    560,635
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              91,194
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                              155
<OTHER-SE>                                        265,646
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      560,635
<SALES>                                           145,829
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  145,829
<CGS>                                             100,152
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     100,152
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   25,191
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  2,665
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    17,821
<INCOME-TAX>                                        7,128
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                10,693
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                       10,693
<EPS-BASIC>                                         .71
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         .70


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 11

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                MERIX CORPORATION
                      CALCULATIONS OF NET INCOME PER SHARE


                                                        Three Months Ended
                                      --------------------------------------------------------
                                           August 30, 1997               August 31, 1996
                                      --------------------------    --------------------------
                                                           Fully                         Fully
                                          Primary        Diluted        Primary        Diluted
                                      -----------    -----------    -----------    -----------
<S>                                       <C>            <C>            <C>            <C>    
Weighted average shares
  outstanding for the period                6,185          6,185          6,134          6,134

Dilutive common stock
  options using the treasury
  stock method                                119            126            186            186
                                      -----------    -----------    -----------    -----------

Total shares used in per share
  calculations                              6,304          6,311          6,320          6,320
                                      ===========    ===========    ===========    ===========


Net income                                $   293        $   293        $ 1,256        $ 1,256
                                      ===========    ===========    ===========    ===========

Earnings per share                        $  0.05        $  0.05        $  0.20        $  0.20
                                      ===========    ===========    ===========    ===========
</TABLE>
644 A.2d 73

#### IN THE MATTER OF JUDE J. TONZOLA, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

May 26, 1994.

CONSENT ORDER

THIS MATTER, having been opened to the Court by DAVID E. JOHNSON, JR., Director, Office of Attorney Ethics, and with the consent of the Respondent, Jude J. Tonzola, of Newark, and Respondent’s counsel, William R. Connelly, and it appearing that the Office of Attorney Ethics and Respondent having agreed to Respondent being temporarily suspended from the practice of law, together with the additional relief provided in this Order, pending final disposition of all ethics grievances before the District XIV Ethics Committee,

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Jude J. Tonzola of Newark, admitted to practice in this State in 1986, is temporarily suspended from the practice of law, effective immediately, pending final determination of all grievances, and until further Order of the Court.

2. The Office of Attorney Ethics take such emergent protective action, pursuant to *R.l:20-U(c),*as it deems appropriate.

*23. All funds, if any, presently existing in any New Jersey financial institution maintained by respondent in an individual capacity, pursuant to *R.l:21-6*shall be restrained from disbursement and shall be transmitted by the banks which are the present custodians thereof to the Clerk of the Superior Court for deposit in the Superior Court Trust Fund pending the further Order of this' Court.

4. Jude J. Tonzola is hereby restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of suspension.

5. Jude J. Tonzola is hereby restrained and enjoined from disbursing funds from any of the foregoing bank accounts.

6. Jude J. Tonzola shall comply with all the Administrative Guidelines of the Office of Attorney Ethics governing suspended, disbarred or resigned attorneys.
**EXHIBIT31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Margaret A. Torres, Chief FinancialOfficer, certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewed this quarterly report onForm 10-QSB of Heritage Oaks Bancorp;

 

2.               Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.               Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.               Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(c) and 15d) for the registrant and we have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures,or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision,

to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisquarterly report is being prepared;

b) Intentionally Left Blank

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

d) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

 

5.               Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function);

 

a) all significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
| Date:   October  16, 2003 |
|------------------------------------------|
|                                     | /s/ Margaret A. Torres |   |
|                                     | Margaret A. Torres |
|                                     | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7319 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7319

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend the Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act of 2016 to provide 
   flexibility with respect to the leaseback of certain Federal real 
                   property, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. LEASEBACK RESTRICTION.

    Section 12(b)(4) of the Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act of 
2016 (40 U.S.C. 1303 note; Public Law 114-287) is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``for a period of greater than 3 years'' 
        before the period at the end;
            (2) by striking ``None of the'' and inserting the 
        following:
                    ``(A) In general.--None of the''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(B) Requirements.--A leaseback under this 
                paragraph--
                            ``(i) shall expire on or before the last 
                        day of the 3-year period beginning on the date 
                        of the sale of the respective property;
                            ``(ii) may not contain any options to 
                        extend or renew the leaseback;
                            ``(iii) may only be entered into once for 
                        purposes of temporarily housing the Federal 
                        agency in the property at the time of the sale; 
                        and
                            ``(iv) shall only be for the purpose of 
                        facilitating the sale of the respective 
                        property.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 21, 2018.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
115th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 7319

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To amend the Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act of 2016 to provide 
   flexibility with respect to the leaseback of certain Federal real 
                   property, and for other purposes.
```
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 1847** 

I n re: SHAMONTE LAMONT WALL ,

Petitioner.

On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus

. ( 1:05

- cr - 00096

- 1 )

Submitted : September 28, 2010 Decided: October 1, 2010

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

Shamonte Lamont Wall , Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Shamonte Lamont Wall petit ions for a wr it of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to vacate and dismiss his criminal convictions . We conclude that Wall is not entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinar y circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976) ; United States v. Moussaoui , 333 F.3d 509, 516

- 17 (4th Cir. 2003) . Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan

Ass’n , 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988)

. Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal , In re Lockheed Martin Corp. , 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007) , and is not available if the petition er has other adequate means to seek t he desired relief.

In re Braxton , 258 F.3d 250, 261 (4th Cir. 2001). The relief sought by Wall is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We dispen se 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.
PETITION DENIED
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 12, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 62503]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-25581]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration


Correction: Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; 
Comprehensive Data Collection on Fishing Dependence of Alaska 
Communities

AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

ACTION: Correction.

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

SUMMARY: On September 28, 2010, a notice was published in the Federal 
Register (75 FR 59687) on the proposed information collection, 
Comprehensive Data Collection on Fishing Dependence of Alaska 
Communities.
    Under the heading FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, the e-mail 
address is corrected to read <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a9e8c4cbccdb87e1c0c4ccdae9c7c6c8c887cec6df"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="16577b747364385e7f7b7365567879777738717960">[email protected]</span></a>.
    All other information in the notice is correct and remains 
unchanged.

    Dated: October 6, 2010.
Gwellnar Banks,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010-25581 Filed 10-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Julio Cesar PEREZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D10-2855.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 5, 2011.

Julio Cesar Perez, Miami, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before GERSTEN, WELLS, and SUAREZ, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Julio Cesar Perez (“the defendant”) appeals from the denial of a motion for additional jail credit, which we treat as the denial of a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800. We affirm in part, and reverse in part.

The defendant asserts that the trial court erred in calculating the credit for time served (“CTS”) when he was sentenced. In connection with his plea, the defendant agreed to CTS from February 5, 2009, to November 10, 2009. The sentence provides for 246 days of CTS. The defendant contends that he should have been awarded 309 days. The proper calculation is 277 days. Thus, the trial court erred in calculating the defendant’s CTS.

The defendant also contends that the trial court erred in not awarding CTS for the time served in 2008. The CTS ac-knowledgement form the defendant signed *593clearly shows that he would not be awarded CTS for 2008. Therefore, the trial court properly excluded the 2008 CTS.

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s denial of CTS for 2008, but reverse and remand for correction of the sentence to 277 days CTS.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for correction of sentence.
#### George Dayo v. Frank Provinski.

*Justices of the peace*— Replevin—Jurisdiction,

It is not a good' plea to the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace to issue a writ of replevin that the property is held by the *352defendant as an officer, under a writ of attachment issued by another justice of the peace.

Error to Gogebic. (Williams, J.)

Submitted on briefs February 5, 1892.

Decided February 19, 1892.

Replevin. Plaintiff brings error.

Reversed.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

*C. F.*Button, for appellant.

*George M. King,*for defendant.

Grant, J.

'Replevin. Suit brought before a justice of the peace. Plaintiff filed the usual declaration in replevin. Defendant interposed a plea to the jurisdiction of the court, setting forth that he was a constable, and held the property under a writ of attachment issued by another justice of the peace, in a suit wherein one Cummings was plaintiff and one Schilkie was defendant. To this plea plaintiff demurred. The justice rendered judgment in favor of defendant, quashing the writ of replevin, and ordering a return of the property.

It is urged that the justice’s court which issued the writ of attachment obtained jurisdiction of the property, and that, therefore, no other court of concurrent jurisdiction could interfere with it.

We are of the contrary opinion. The owner of personal property, or one entitled to its possession, may bring suit therefor in any court having jurisdiction over the action of replevin and of the parties to the suit. The law does not require him to ascertain, before bringing suit, by what claim one in the wrongful possession of his property claims to hold it, nor, if he does know it, to plant his suit in the same court as that from which an attachment or execution is issued. *Overall v. Pero, 7*Mich. 314; *Weber v. Henry,*16 Id. 399.

*353In *O’Connor v. Gidday,*63 Mich. 630, a wife brought replevin in one court to recover goods which had been seized by the defendant, an officer, under a writ of execution issued from another court against her husband, claiming that the goods were exempt. Many other similar cases will be found in the reports of this Court.

Judgment reversed, and case remanded for further proceedings.

Morse, O. J., McGrath and Long, JJ., concurred.
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7387 

To adjust the eastern boundary of the Deschutes Canyon-Steelhead Falls 

and Deschutes Canyon Wilderness Study Areas in the State of Oregon 

to facilitate fire prevention and response activities to protect private 

property, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 20, 2018 

Mr. WALDEN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To adjust the eastern boundary of the Deschutes CanyonSteelhead Falls and Deschutes Canyon Wilderness Study 

Areas in the State of Oregon to facilitate fire prevention 

and response activities to protect private property, and 

for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Crooked River Ranch 

5 Fire Protection Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 7387 IH

1 SEC. 2. BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT, DESCHUTES CANYON2 STEELHEAD FALLS WILDERNESS STUDY 

3 AREA BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT, OREGON. 

4 (a) BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT.—The boundary of the 

5 Deschutes Canyon-Steelhead Falls Wilderness Study Area 

6 is modified to exclude approximately 688 acres of public 

7 land, as depicted on the map entitled ‘‘Deschutes Canyon8 Steelhead Falls Wilderness Study Area (WSA) Proposed 

9 Boundary Adjustment’’ and dated September 26, 2018. 

10 (b) EFFECT OF EXCLUSION.— 

11 (1) IN GENERAL.—The public land excluded 

12 from the Deschutes Canyon-Steelhead Falls Wilder13 ness Study Area under subsection (a)— 

14 (A) is no longer subject to section 603(c) 

15 of the Federal Land Policy and Management 

16 Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1782(c)); and 

17 (B) shall be managed in accordance with— 

18 (i) this section; 

19 (ii) the Federal Land Policy and Man20 agement Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et 

21 seq.); and 

22 (iii) any applicable resource manage23 ment plan. 

24 (2) MANAGEMENT.—The Secretary of the Inte25 rior shall manage the land excluded from the 

26 Deschutes Canyon-Steelhead Falls Wilderness Study 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•HR 7387 IH

1 Area under subsection (a) to improve fire resiliency 

2 and forest health, including the conduct of wildfire 

3 prevention and response activities, as appropriate. 

4 (3) OFF-ROAD RECREATIONAL MOTORIZED

5 USE.—The Secretary of the Interior shall not permit 

6 off-road recreational motorized use on the public 

7 land excluded from the Deschutes Canyon-Steelhead 

8 Falls Wilderness Study Area under subsection (a). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
#### PROGRESSO LOFTS OF FORT LAUDERDALE, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Appellant, v. PROGRESSO LOFTS, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Jennifer Levin, P.A., a Florida professional association, Rene Lepine, Individually, and Fidelity National Title Insurance Company, a California corporation, Appellees.

No. 4D09-2755.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 6, 2010.

William S. Isenberg of the Law Offices of William S. Isenberg & Associates, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Alaine S. Greenberg, Jerold I. Budney and William R. Clayton of Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appel-lees Jennifer Levin, P.A., and Fidelity National Title Insurance Co.

PER CURIAM.

*Affirmed. See Straub Capital Corp. v. L. Frank Chopin, P.A.,*724 So.2d 577, 579 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (“[Ajbsent a tort independent of breach of contract, the remedy for economic loss lies in contract law.”).

GROSS, C.J., FARMER and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 LIBERTY PROPERTY TRUST CERTIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY
RULE 13a-14(b) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 
 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Liberty Property Trust (the Company) on Form 10-Q
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the Report), I, WILLIAM P. HANKOWSKY,
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, in connection with Rule 13a-14(b) under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, that based on 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/ WILLIAM P. HANKOWSKYWilliam P. HankowskyChairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
 Date: May 6, 2005
#### Emory E. CARTER, Petitioner, v. Walter A. McNEIL, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, Respondent.

No. 1D10-5202.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Jan. 10, 2011.

Emory E. Carter, pro se, Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

DENIED. *See Clark v. State,*954 So.2d 685 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).

WOLF, KAHN, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.