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


<ARTICLE>                                            9

<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
     QUARTERLY  REPORT  ON  FORM  10QSB  AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY  BY
     REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL INFORMATION.
</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000

<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                  DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          4,941
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                              0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                    0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                    0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    10,353
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                            809
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           11,161
<LOANS>                                       156,507
<ALLOWANCE>                                       832
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                176,535
<DEPOSITS>                                    116,448
<SHORT-TERM>                                   19,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               950
<LONG-TERM>                                    19,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                          215
<OTHER-SE>                                     20,922
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                176,535
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 2,868
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 239
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                3,107
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              1,137
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              1,613
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           1,494
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      30
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   886
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   864
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        864
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                      511
<EPS-BASIC>                                       .24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .23
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   3.62
<LOANS-NON>                                     1,663
<LOANS-PAST>                                        0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                     0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  804
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       2
<RECOVERIES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 832
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                              832
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                           832



</TABLE>
#### STATE ex rel. Joseph C. NIXON v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-2367.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 1, 2011.

In re Nixon, Joseph C.; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 06-09-0988; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 1078.

Denied. Moot.
#### Patrick D. WITKEMPER, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 5D09-4226.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Aug. 20, 2010.

Patrick D. Witkemper, Sneads, pro se.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee and Wesley Heidt, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner seeks a belated appeal. We appointed the trial court as commissioner to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine the facts. Upon review of the report, the petition for habeas corpus for belated appeal is denied.

PETITION DENIED.

GRIFFIN, PALMER and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Special Emphasis Panel, Tetralogy of Fallot.                    

*Date:*                         November 3, 2010.                    

*Time:*                         2 p.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, 6100 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Neelakanta Ravindranath, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, Division of Scientific Review, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, 6100 Executive Blvd., Room 5B01G, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-6889,                         *ravindrn@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: October 5, 2010.

Jennifer S. Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2010-25629 Filed 10-8-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
[No. 58615-2.

Department One.

February 6, 1992.]

#### *In the Matter of the Marriage of*Jaimie H. Lemon, *Respondent, and*Wilbur Lemon, *Petitioner.*

*Craig S. Adams*and *Gelman & Associates,*for petitioner.

*Barbara Jo Sylvester, Elizabeth A. Pauli,*and *McGavick, Graves, Beale & McNerthney,*for respondent.

Per Curiam.

This matter concerns refusal of a trial court to recognize an affidavit of prejudice which was timely filed; it met completely the requirements of RCW 4.12.050. The affidavit was not timely according to former Pierce County Local Rule 12 which requires filing of the affidavit "as soon as the presenting party has knowledge that the case has been assigned to that judge."

*423The requirement of the local rule conflicts with RCW 4.12.050 and our cases. Nonetheless, Division Two of the Court of Appeals affirmed. *In re Marriage of Lemon,*59 Wn. App. 568, 799 P.2d 748 (1990).

This court granted a petition for review and remanded for further consideration in light of *Harbor Enters., Inc. v. Gudjonsson,*116 Wn.2d 283, 803 P.2d 798 (1991). In an unpublished opinion, noted at 61 Wn. App. 1055 (1991) (Alexander, C.J., dissenting), Division Two adhered to its published opinion, stating that *Harbor Enters,*did not change its view. We reverse.

Quite apart from the decision in *Harbor Enters.,*the Court of Appeals was in error. The right to a change of judge which accrues when the applicant meets the statutory criteria is amply clear from the holdings in *Marine Power & Equip. Co. v. Department of Transp.,*102 Wn.2d 457, 461-65, 687 P.2d 202 (1984). The effect of a timely affidavit, *i.e.,*timely under the statute, is beyond question from the holding in *State v. Cockrell,*102 Wn.2d 561, 565, 689 P.2d 32 (1984). Here there is no claim of an extraordinary circumstance, a possible exception mentioned in *Marine Power,*at 465.

In its published opinion, the Court of Appeals stated that this court has acknowledged "that a local rule reasonably defining timeliness of such affidavits would be valid." *In re Marriage of Lemon,*at 572. It cites *State ex rel. Beeler v. Smith,*76 Wash. 460, 136 P. 678 (1913). That case is no longer valid authority because the then statute had no timeliness requirement. No case since has held that a local rule may restrict the time criteria of RCW 4.12.050.

The Court of Appeals also cites *Seattle v. Marshall,*54 Wn. App. 829, 776 P.2d 174 (1989) as validating a local rule. That case, again, is not in point. It concerned a municipal court rule to which RCW 4.12.050 is not applicable, and the local rule was based on CrRLJ 8.9(b).

*424The plain and clear statement in *Harbor Enters,*is repeated:

> The statute grants a valuable right to a litigant; a local rule cannot restrict the exercise of that right by imposing a time requirement different from the statute.

*Harbor Enters.,*at 293.

The published and unpublished decisions of the Court of Appeals are reversed; the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith and consistent with prior rulings on other issues.

Reconsideration denied March 17, 1992.
#### Joseph WATSON v. Tim WILKINSON, Warden W.C.C., James Leblanc, Secretary, Dept. of Corr.

No. 2010-CI-1333.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 3, 2011.

In re Watson, Joseph; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. F, No. 575,511; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009-CA-2084.

Denied.
No. 87-1011.

#### Illinois *v.*White.

Sup. Ct. Ill. Certiorari denied.
585 A.2d 366

#### THOMAS H. EVERTON, SR., ET AL. v. MACK TRUCKS, INC.

September 4, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
**ATTORNEY GENERAL**  **& TEXAS**  **AUSTIN QllQ**  **” L**  **” SILLLI**  **”** ***** **_. -:**  **.t??.olMrr**

**sriacrri L** 

***. .:~** **’ ;,**  **:. .**  **‘**
**.**

**. .**  **‘ ,**  Honor.hii.C.'

02 B6@on..

.I :'
O%!DOritiOfl Q*m roes Red River t :DaYilr&

OXD4MU rad to **de&** SO Montague ioh liu in ?hJita~uo

eoiaas, JNntagus Countywould hava ooc+pt s8id drod cad in the et9nt Cwnty, OklahoimhoOs.pta a **8hi1 ’** **3r** dud to,ttle poddon id t&et oounty,would th4 two Ccntntl44 own all of the bridge, or 18 @.V Cart of se&U bridge oqcr any pOl!r;ion Of th4 SiVOr alebed **t~.bo** owigeu by **thei** nsderal Gov4r8n4nt?a
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 24 (Friday, February 5, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 6041]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-2437]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for 
Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, February 10, 2010, 8 a.m. to 
February 10, 2010, 5 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, which was published in the Federal 
Register on January 11, 2010, 75 FR 1397-1399.
    The meeting has been changed to a video assisted meeting. The 
meeting time has been changed to 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. on February 10, 
2010. The meeting is closed to the public.

    Dated: January 28, 2010.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-2437 Filed 2-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Cathy BENNETT.

No. 2010-KK-1827.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 29, 2010.

In re Bennett, Cathy; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Livingston, 21st Judicial District Court Div. B, Nos. 023845, 92899; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 0729.

Denied.
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7120 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 28, 2018 

Received 

AN ACT 

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to 

extend through 2023 the authority of the Federal Election Commission to impose civil money penalties on the 

basis of a schedule of penalties established and published 

by the Commission. 

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


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

HR 7120 RDS 

1 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY AU2 THORITY OF FEDERAL ELECTION COMMIS3 SION THROUGH 2023. 

4 (a) EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY.—Section 

5 309(a)(4)(C)(v) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 

6 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30109(a)(4)(C)(v)) is amended by strik7 ing ‘‘December 31, 2018’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 

8 2023’’. 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

10 subsection (a) shall take effect on the earlier of— 

11 (1) December 31, 2018; or 

12 (2) the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Passed the House of Representatives November 27, 

2018. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Randall Loren GLESSNER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-30148.

D.C. No. CR-99-00048.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Dec. 5, 2000.

Decided Jan. 5, 2001.

*649Before B. FLETCHER, FISHER, Circuit Judges, and SCHWARZER,* Senior District Judge.

*

 The Honorable William W Schwarzer, Senior United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Randall Loren Glessner appeals his conviction on twenty-three counts of violating the Internal Revenue Laws, 26 U.S.C. §§ 7206(2), 7212.

Glessner contends that he did not make a knowing and intelligent waiver of counsel and that he was therefore denied his Sixth Amendment right. “If a defendant chooses to represent himself ... his decision must be made knowingly and intelligently; that is, a criminal defendant must be aware of the nature of the charges against him, the possible penalties, and the dangers and disadvantages of self representation. ...” *United States v. Balough,*820 F.2d 1485, 1487 (9th Cir.1987). Glessner does not challenge the district court’s finding that he was competent to waive counsel but argues that the court failed to make the requisite record to establish that the waiver was knowing and intelligent. Our review is *de novo. See United States v. Springer,*51 F.3d 861, 864 (9th Cir. 1995).

The district court discussed with Glessner the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation. It advised him of the possible penalties he faced if convicted. However, the court did not inform Glessner of the nature of the charges against him. While the magistrate judge read the indictment to Glessner, and the district court gave a copy of the indictment to Glessner and told him to read it, neither the magistrate judge nor the district judge explained the charges or ensured that Glessner understood them. Indeed, at the competency hearing less than two months before trial, Glessner said that for some time he had been trying to figure out what he had been charged with and asked for more information, which the court declined to provide. Absent any specific inquiry by the district court on the record, or other facts demonstrating that Glessner was aware of and understood the charges, we lack assurance that Glessner’s waiver was knowing and intelligent. *See Balough,*820 F.2d at 1487,1489.1

Glessner’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel having been violated, the judgment must be reversed and the conviction vacated. Ordinarily we would remand for a new trial. However, because Glessner has served most of his sentence, a new trial would be inappropriate and government counsel advised the court at argument that no new trial would be sought. Accordingly, we remand with directions to promptly release Glessner and dismiss the charges against him.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. Our disposition makes it unnecessary to address Glessner’s contention that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict.
Order entered June 27, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00265-CV

JOHN T. JENKINS, Appellant

V.

COUNSELORS LINDSAY L. LAMBERT AND CHERYL R.WORLEY, ET AL, Appellees

On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-12-04402

ORDER

We DENY appellant John T. Jenkins’s June 24, 2013 motion to disregard and strike 

appellee Lindsay L. Lambert’s motion to dismiss.

/David W. Evans/

DAVID W. EVANS

JUSTICE
#### Sabino Cruz VENTURA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 2D09-1570.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 23, 2010.

Rehearing Denied June 17, 2010.

PER CURIAM.

Sabino Cruz Ventura appeals an order summarily denying his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We find no merit in Ventura’s claims, and therefore, we affirm. However, we note that although Ventura pleaded guilty to second-degree murder, the judgment form and minutes of the plea hearing inaccurately reflect that he pleaded to second-degree felony murder. We therefore remand with directions to the postconviction court to correct the scrivener’s error which is apparent on the face of the record and which the postconviction court noted in its order of denial. *See Stern v. State,*833 So.2d 190, 190 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).

Affirmed and remanded.

ALTENBERND, CRENSHAW, and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

LAMAR METTS,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 720 MAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 10th day of December, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of

Appeal is DENIED.
EXHIBIT 13.1





CERTIFICATION





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, the undersigned officer of Orion Engineered Carbons S.A. (the “Company”) hereby certifies that, to the officer’s knowledge, the Company’s Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2016 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date:     February 23, 2017





By:    _ /s/ Jack Clem __________________________


Jack Clem


Chief Executive Officer
**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 of Consolidated Graphics, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jon C. Biro, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial and Accounting Officer and Secretary 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;   and           |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                               |
| (2)    |   | Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material   respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |

 
| Dated: February 2, 2011 |                                                   |
|------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|
|                         | /s/ Jon C. Biro                                        |
|                         | Jon C. Biro                                            |
|                         | Executive   Vice President,                            |
|                         | Chief   Financial and Accounting Officer and Secretary |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7642

TIMOTHY MAURICE VALENTINE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

THOMAS R. CORCORAN, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL

OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA96-760-CCB)

Submitted: February 13, 1997 Decided: February 27, 1997

Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Timothy Maurice Valentine, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran,

Jr., Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994), amended

by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L.

No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the

district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on

the reasoning of the district court. Valentine v. Corcoran, No. CA96-760-CCB (D. Md. Sept. 4, 1996). 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
#### Kathleen SMITH, Appellant, v. James W.P. SMITH, Appellee.

Nos. 5D10-1711, 5D10-2389.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

May 6, 2011.

Rehearing Denied June 6, 2011.

Kathleen Smith, Las Vegas, Nevada, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Kathleen Smith appeals from an order approving the sale of certain real property pursuant to a sales contract procured by the court-appointed special magistrate. The special magistrate had been appointed by the court pursuant to a final judgment of partition. *See*§ 64.061(4), Fla. Stat. (2008).

Our review is limited because of the lack of a transcript. In the absence of a transcript of the evidentiary hearing below, we are obligated to affirm the trial court unless fundamental error appears on the face of the appealed order. *Murphy v. Murphy,*948 So.2d 864, 865 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). No such error appears on the face of the trial court’s order.1

AFFIRMED.

PALMER, ORFINGER and EVANDER, JJ., concur.

1

. The injunction provisions complained of by Ms. Smith were not made a part of the trial court’s final order and are no longer in effect. Accordingly, we decline to address the validity of same.