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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information from consolidated financial
statements for the period ending September 30, 1997 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           3,508
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   26,787
<ALLOWANCES>                                       700
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                30,432
<PP&E>                                         248,603
<DEPRECIATION>                                  18,565
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 277,757
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,507
<BONDS>                                        114,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           158
<OTHER-SE>                                     128,595
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   277,757
<SALES>                                         83,875
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                83,879
<CGS>                                           42,837
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   42,837
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   144
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,677
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 37,610
<INCOME-TAX>                                    13,164
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             24,446
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    24,446
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.45
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

RF MONOLITHICS, INC.

CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF SARBANES  OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, David M. Kirk, Chief Executive Officer and President of RF Monolithics, Inc. (the Company), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:



| | 1. | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended May 31, 2007 (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. | Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate
disclosure document.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this instrument to be executed this 13th day of July, 2007.



/s/ David M. KirkName:

David M. KirkTitle:

Chief Executive Officer and President


*A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
585 A.2d 409

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. WILLIAM WOLFFE.

October 30, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
U.S. Department of labor Mine Safety and Health Administration 

Approval and Certification Center 

765 Technology Drive 

Triadelphia, West Virginia 26059 

November 21, 2019 

NOTICE FOR APPROVAL APPLICANTS 

Clarification of Approval Application Evaluation Process 

On September 23, 2019, we sent notice to you and other current approval applicants about 

proposed changes for our approval application evaluation process. The primary change was to 

establish a new cancellation policy to streamline the processing of applications and allow new 

applications to be reviewed more promptly and to not extend the process indefinitely. 

We received feedback suggesting to us that additional clarification was necessary. The primary 

concern expressed was that there was no opportunity for manufacturers to provide additional 

information in response to the discrepancies prior to cancellation of the application. 

For approval reviews where minor discrepancies are identified, our staff will contact you to 

discuss necessary changes. We will dete.rmine a reasonable period oftime, based on the nature 

ofthe discrepancies, to allow applicants to submit changes and modifications to correct 

discrepancies. Because the complexity ofthe applications vary, this time period will be 

determined on a case-by-case basis. If discrepancies are not corrected within the time period 

allowed, your application will be canceled. 

We appreciate your feedback and look forward to providing the opportunity to all applicants to 

participate in the product approval process. Thank you for expressing your concerns and giving 

us the oppo1iunity to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the application process and to 

work with you to improve the safety and health of miners. 

Sincerely,· 

Dennis Perlich 

Center Chief 

MSHA Approval and Certification Center
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.

February 13, 2019

p0212 

# Order

Clerk February 13, 2019

159037 & (17)

HEATHER SAMMUT, Personal Representative

of the Estate of JOSEPH SAMMUT,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 159037

COA: 345254

Macomb CC: 20 16

- 001969

- NH

SANJAY BATRA, MD, SANJAY

BATRA, MD, PC, JAMES R. MARTIN, MD,

and JAMES R. MARTIN, MD, PC,

Defendants

- Appellants,

and

ST. JOHN MACOMB

- OAKLAND HOSPITAL,

MACOMB CENTER, a/k/a ST. JOHN

PROVIDENCE HEALTH SYSTEM,

VAMSHIDAR GUDUGUNTLA, MD,

KISHAN JASTI, MD, EASTSIDE

CARDIOVASCULAR MEDICINE, PC, GINA

COLONTINO, DO, ADVANCED

CARDIOVASCULAR ASSOCIATES, PLC,

MARK BOIK, RRT, CHERYL ANN KLASSA,

RNP, MAH M OUD AL

- HAD IDI, MD and

MAH M OUD AL

- HADIDI, MD, PC,

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. The

application for leave to appeal the January 23, 2019 order of the Court of Appeals is

considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented

should now be reviewed by this Court.
**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 Familymeds Group, Inc. (the “Company”)
      on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Edgardo
      A. Mercadante, President, Chief Executive Officer, Chairman of the Board and
      Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that
      to my knowledge:




(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with 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/
                Edgardo A. Mercadante*Edgardo
                A. Mercadante
                President,
                  Chief Executive Officer,
                Chairman
                  of the Board and
                Principal
                  Executive Officer
                November
                  14, 2006
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. RICKY LEE PETERSON.

November 2, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 199 (Friday, October 15, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 63489]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-25975]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2009-N-0380]


Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office 
of Management and Budget Approval; Product Jurisdiction: Assignment of 
Agency Component for Review of Premarket Applications

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a 
collection of information entitled ``Product Jurisdiction: Assignment 
of Agency Component for Review of Premarket Applications'' has been 
approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonna Capezzuto, Office of Information 
Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400B, 
Rockville, MD 20850, 301-796-3794, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#672d080909060b1e090949040617021d1d12130827010306490f0f1449000811"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4f052021212e23362121612c2e3f2a35353a3b200f292b2e6127273c61282039">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of March 17, 2010 
(75 FR 12758), the agency announced that the proposed information 
collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44 
U.S.C. 3507. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays 
a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the 
information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0523. 
The approval expires on August 31, 2013. A copy of the supporting 
statement for this information collection is available on the Internet 
at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

    Dated: October 8, 2010.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-25975 Filed 10-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Paul J. PINCKARD, Plaintiff-Appellant v. METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE and Davidson County, Tennessee, Defendant-Appellee

No. 00-5117.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Jan. 10, 2001.

*360Before MERRITT and COLE, Circuit Judges; and HOOD,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Joseph M. Hood, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky, sitting by designation.

MERRITT, Circuit Judge.

In this appeal presented to the Court on briefs by consent of the parties, the Court affirms the judgment of the District Court. As set out in the District Court opinion beginning on page 130 of the Appendix, the plaintiff has an impairment called “syncope” which causes him from time to time to become dizzy and faint. While working for the defendant as a police officer, plaintiff fainted in March of 1998 while on the job attending court and again in May of 1998 while riding in a police car. He was discharged from his employment because he falsely answered questions pri- or to his employment. He stated, “No,” that he had not had any dizziness or fainting spells or epilepsy seizures and answered, “No,” that he did not have any condition that may interfere with his ability to perform the job of police officer. The record shows that he had experienced similar dizziness problems prior to his employment and had experienced an epileptic seizure. He did not disclose these problems and hence gave false answers. The defendant fired him for the offense of making false statements.

We conclude that this reason for terminating the plaintiff is a legitimate reason about which there is not a material dispute of fact. Hence the judgment of the District Court may be, and is hereby, affirmed on this ground. The Court reaches no conclusion on the question of whether the plaintiff has a “disability” within the meaning of the American with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a), which prohibits employment discrimination “against a qualified individual with a disability.” In view of our conclusion that the defendant did not violate the ADA in terminating the plaintiff for making false statements at the time of his employment, we do not reach the legal question of what constitutes such a disability.
#### HOLLY LOPEZ v. TOWNSHIP OF LACEY.

November 2, 1987.

Petition for certification granted.
Exhibit 35.1

SERVICING COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2014-3 for the fiscal year ending
December 31, 2014 (the Report), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Santander Consumer USA Inc. (the Servicer), does hereby certify and represent that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities and performance of the Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of June 18, 2014, among Santander Drive Auto Receivables LLC, Santander Consumer USA Inc., Santander Drive
Auto Receivables Trust 2014-3 and U.S. Bank National Association (the Agreement) during the period that is the subject of the Report has been made under my supervision.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the period that is the subject of the Report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC./s/ Jason KulasName:

Jason KulasTitle:

President and Chief Financial OfficerDate:

March 23, 2015/s/ Jennifer M. PoppName:

Jennifer M. PoppTitle:

Chief Accounting OfficerDate:

March 23, 2015
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal Service                        TM                        .                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

Postal Service gives notice of filing of a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3).

# DATES:

October 13, 2010.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that on October 4, 2010, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Express Mail Contract 9 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *http://www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2011-1, CP2011-2.                

Neva R. Watson,

Attorney, Legislative.

[FR Doc. 2010-25605 Filed 10-12-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Blyth, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ending April 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert H. Barghaus,Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

 

(1)             The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
|   | /s/ Robert  H. Barghaus                     |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Robert H.  Barghaus                         |
|   | Vice  President and Chief Financial Officer |
|   | April 14,  2005                        |

 

This certification is madesolely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. § 1350, subject to the knowledge standardcontained therein, and not for any other purpose.

 

----
585 A.2d 377

#### LAWRENCE HITLIN v. LOUIS J. DOUGHERTY, M.D.

September 18, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 96-6370

RONALD RAY YOST,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston.

Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge.

(CR-90-47, CA-95-891)

Submitted: January 20, 1998

Decided: April 17, 1998

Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Ronald Ray Yost, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for

Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his motion

filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have

reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error.

Appellant asserts that he was denied due process of law at sentencing

because the Government failed to show and the court failed to

expressly find that the methamphetamine attributed to Appellant was

D-methamphetamine. Appellant failed to raise this issue on direct

appeal. We conclude that even if Appellant has demonstrated cause

for his default, he has not established actual prejudice. We therefore

find the claim barred by his default. See United States v. Frady, 456

U.S. 152, 167-68 (1982).

Appellant also asserts that counsel was ineffective at sentencing

and on appeal for failing to challenge an inadequate factual determination as to type of methamphetamine attributed to him at sentencing.

We affirm the district court's order as to this claim because Appellant

failed to establish that but for counsel's errors, he would not have

pled guilty. See Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985); Strickland

v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Finally, we find that Appellant

has waived review of his claim that the district court abused its discretion when it assumed the substance attributed to Appellant was Dmethamphetamine because he did not raise this claim at sentencing or

on direct appeal. See Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 477 n.10 (1976);

United States v. Emanuel, 869 F.2d 795, 796 (4th Cir. 1989).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order. 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

 2
<PAGE>


                                     EXHIBIT 11
                                EAGLE FINANCE CORP.
                                          
                        COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE
             For the Three and Six Months Ended June 30, 1998 and 1997
                                    (Unaudited)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                             THREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30,   SIX MONTHS ENDED June 30,
                                                                  1998         1997         1998          1997
                                                             ------------    ---------   ------------    ------- 
                                                                      (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)
<S>                                                       <C>            <C>          <C>          <C>
Income data:

1.   Income (loss) before income taxes . . . . . . . . . .      $(2,831)     $(3,208)     $(4,306)      $(4,716)
2.   Applicable income taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .           --           --           --            --
                                                             ------------    ---------   ------------    ------- 
3.   Net income (loss) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      $(2,831)     $(3,208)     $(4,306)      $(4,716)
                                                             ------------    ---------   ------------    ------- 
                                                             ------------    ---------   ------------    ------- 
Number of outstanding shares:

4.   Weighted average common shares
        outstanding, adjusted for stock splits . . . . . .        4,229        4,189        4,229         4,189

5.   Weighted average shares of treasury
     stock outstanding, adjusted for stock splits. . . . .           --           --           --            --

6.   Weighted average shares reserved for stock
     options (utilizing the treasury stock method) . . . .           --           --           --            --

7.   Common shares outstanding (Line 4-5+6). . . . . . . .        4,229        4,189        4,229         4,189

Net income per share:

8.   Net income (loss) per common shares (Line 3/4). . . .       $(0.67)      $(0.77)      $(1.02)       $(1.13)
9.   Fully diluted net income (loss) per common (Line 3/7)       $(0.67)      $(0.77)      $(1.02)       $(1.13)

</TABLE>