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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0000892449
<NAME> FIRST FINANCIAL FINANCIAL GROUP
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          10,394
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             139
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 2,600
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     30,403
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                             677
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                               709
<LOANS>                                        219,113
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,535
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 287,624
<DEPOSITS>                                     244,738
<SHORT-TERM>                                     6,676
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              2,169
<LONG-TERM>                                      2,075
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,439
<OTHER-SE>                                      26,527
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 287,624
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 15,097
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,488
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    88
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                16,673
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               5,166
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,463
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           11,210
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      360
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 10,750
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,522
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       3,522
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,399
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.06
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    9.12
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,221
<LOANS-PAST>                                       484
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,290
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      152
<RECOVERIES>                                        37
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,535
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             2,535
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 214 (Friday, November 5, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 68354]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27953]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER11-1883-000]


Milner Dam Wind Park, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial 
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

October 28, 2010.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
Milner Dam Wind Park, LLC's application for market-based rate 
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such 
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR 
Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a 
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is November 18, 2010.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link 
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification 
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with 
any FERC Online service, please e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#02444750414d6c6e6b6c67517772726d707642646770612c656d74"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a9efecfbeae6c7c5c0c7ccfadcd9d9c6dbdde9cfccdbca87cec6df">[email protected]</span></a> or 
call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-27953 Filed 11-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
NASA Advisory Council Science, Technology, 

Engineering and Mathematics (STEM)

Engagement Committee 

AGENDA 

December 4, 2018

12:30 pm – 5:00 pm ET

NASA Headquarters, Room 7H41 

Webex and Call-In Information Below

12:30 Introduction to Meeting B. Girten

12:35 Introduction of Committee Members Members

12:40 Introduction of Administrator and Administrator’s Comments M. Kincaid/J. Bridenstine

1:00 Opening Remarks by Chair A. Kennedy

1:10 STEM Education Advisory Panel Update A. Kennedy/R. Mellado

1:25 Federal CoSTEM 5 Year Strategic Plan M. Kincaid

 

1:35 Office of STEM Engagement (OSTEM) Updates 

 Transformation (Introduction) M. Kincaid

Super Search Engine (May) 

 Partnerships and Space STEM Forum (Girten)

 Performance and Evaluation (Gilmore) 

2:25 Break All

 

2:35 Meeting Agency & CoSTEM Strategy K. Brown 

 OSTEM Business Service Assessment, MAP & Strategy (Brown)

 NextGen Pilot (Girten) 

 

3:15 Feedback and Input on Updates Members

3:45 Discuss/Finalize Findings and Recommendations Members

5:00 Adjourn Meeting B. Girten

844–467–6272 or toll access number 720–259–6462, and then the participant passcode: 634012 followed by the # sign. 

WebEx the link is https://nasa.webex.com/, the meeting number is 905 805 195 and the password is Advisory2018$
#### The State *v.*Thurston and Others.

Wednesday, *June 5.*

When a person accused of a crime before a justice of the peace, is recognized to appear in the Circuit Court, and is convicted in that Court, the costs of the examination before the justice should not be included in the judgment.

ERROR to the *Franklin*Circuit Court.

Dewey, J.

— This was a motion made in the Circuit Court to tax costs. The defendants in error, with several other persons, were prosecuted before a justice of the peace for a riot. The accused parties took a change of venue to another justice, who inquired into the charge, and recognized several of them to appear before the Circuit Court. An indictment was found against the defendants in error for the riot complained of, they were tried, convicted, and fined; judgment accordingly, and for the costs of prosecution. The question presented by the motion to tax the costs is, whether the convicted persons were liable for the costs which were made before the examining magistrates. The Circuit Court held them not to be so liable.

This question depends entirely upon statutory provisions. The indictment is founded upon the act respecting crime and punishment, the 78th section of which provides that “ prosecutions” in the Circuit Court, under that act, shall be instituted by presentment or indictment. R. S. 1838, p. 219. The 80th section enacts that, in all cases of conviction of any offence named in the statute, the costs of “prosecution” shall be included in the judgment rendered against the convict, unless the jury expressly find otherwise. *Id.*220. A justice of the peace, who recognizes a person accused before him, is bound to send up the recognizance to the Circuit Court; but he is not required to accompany it with a transcript of his proceedings, nor with a statement of the costs of examination. ■ R. S. 1838, p. 360. Had the legislature designed that these costs should be taxed against the convict in the Circuit Court, it is reasonable to suppose they would have required them to be certified up, and expressly included them in the judgment. We are strengthened in this conclusion by the fact, that they did make such provisions in cases of misdemeanors triable before justices and appealable to the Circuit Court. Those cases, when appealed, commence in *149the Circuit Court “ *de novo*by indictmentbut the justice is required to send up a transcript of his proceedings, and the costs made before him are required to be taxed against the convict in the Circuit Court. *Id.*362.

*G.*Holland, for the state.

*J. M.*Johnston, for the defendants.

We think the term, “prosecution,” in the 80th section of the act respecting crime and punishment, in feference to the costs for which a convicted person is liable, has the same meaning expressed by it in the 78th section, and does not extend beyond the presentment or indictment. We do not mean to say, however, that the same word, as used in other parts of the statute, has not a more extended signification.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is correct.

*Per Curiam.*

— The judgment is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       4,424,782
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  709,194
<ALLOWANCES>                                    73,000
<INVENTORY>                                 40,240,628
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            46,651,894
<PP&E>                                      32,476,699
<DEPRECIATION>                              16,786,093
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              62,832,466
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       23,906,392
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        65,770
<OTHER-SE>                                  38,765,351
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                62,832,466
<SALES>                                     76,347,189
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            76,347,189
<CGS>                                       53,588,767
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            20,044,343
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (149,210)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,863,289
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,140,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,723,289
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,723,289
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .25


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 31.2**

**SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION**

**Of Chief Financial Officer**

In connection with the Annual Report of eDiets.com, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006, as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Robert T. Hamilton, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that: 

1. I have reviewed the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2006; 

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 thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, includingits consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

(b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

(c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officerand I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): 

(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: March 29, 2007
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2050 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2050

      To repeal the sunset of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief 
  Reconciliation Act of 2001 with respect to the affordable education 
            provisions of such Act, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 3, 2004

 Mr. Grassley introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To repeal the sunset of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief 
  Reconciliation Act of 2001 with respect to the affordable education 
            provisions of such Act, 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. REPEAL OF APPLICABILITY OF SUNSET OF THE ECONOMIC GROWTH AND 
              TAX RELIEF RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2001 WITH RESPECT TO 
              AFFORDABLE EDUCATION PROVISIONS OF SUCH ACT.

    Section 901 of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation 
Act of 2001 is amended by adding at the end the following new 
subsection:
    ``(c) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to the amendments 
made by subtitles A, B, and C of title IV (relating to affordable 
education provisions).''.

SEC. 2. PERMANENT DEDUCTION FOR CERTAIN EXPENSES OF SCHOOL TEACHERS.

    (a) In General.--Section 62(a)(2)(D) of the Internal Revenue Code 
of 1986 (relating to certain expenses of elementary and secondary 
school teachers) is amended by striking ``In the case of taxable years 
beginning during 2002 or 2003, the deductions'' and inserting ``The 
deductions''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to expenses paid or incurred after December 31, 2003.
                                 <all>
```
##### 



Exhibit 10.40
 
 
  Purpose
 Definitions
 Board
 Code
 Common Stock
 Company
 Compensation
 Continuous Status As An Employee
 Contributions 
 Corporate Transaction
 Designated Subsidiaries
 Employee




---



##### 



Exchange Act
 Offering Date
 Offering Period
 Officer
 Plan
 Purchase Date
 Purchase Period
 Purchase Price
 Share
 Subsidiary
 Eligibility
   Offering Periods And Purchase Periods
 Offering Periods




---



##### 



Purchase Periods
 Participation
   Method Of Payment Of Contributions
    Grant Of Option




---



##### 



Exercise Of Option
 Delivery
 Voluntary Withdrawal; Termination Of Employment
     Automatic Withdrawal




---



##### 



Interest
 Stock
    Administration
 Designation Of Beneficiary




---



##### 



Transferability
 Use Of Funds.
 Reports.
 Adjustments Upon Changes In Capitalization; Corporate Transactions.
 Adjustment.
 Corporate Transactions




---



##### 



424(e)
 Amendment Or Termination.
   Notices




---



##### 



Conditions Upon Issuance Of Shares
 Term Of Plan
 Additional Restrictions of Rule 16b-3
 General Provisions




---



##### 








---



#####
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOHN E. BURGESS, 

Plaintiff-counter-claimdefendant-Appellant, 

 v. 

DENNIS MINENI, 

Defendant-counter-claimantplaintiff-Appellee, 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Counter-defendant-Appellee. 

No. 15-16770 

D.C. No. 1:15-cv-00487-SKO 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Sheila K. Oberto, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**

Submitted February 14, 2017***

Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 

U.S.C. § 636(c).

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

FEB 27 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-16770 

John E. Burgess appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment 

for the United States in his breach of contract action against Mineni. We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

In his opening brief, Burgess fails to address how the district court erred in 

granting summary judgment and, thus, this issue is waived. See Wilcox v. Comm’r, 

848 F.2d 1007, 1008 n.2 (9th Cir. 1988) (arguments not raised on appeal by pro se 

litigant deemed abandoned); see also Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 

(9th Cir. 1993) (issues not supported by argument in pro se appellant’s opening 

brief are waived).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on 

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,

AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of FC Banc Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John
R. Christman, President & Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as enacted 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 the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                         
|---------------------------------------------------------
|                                                         
|/s/    JOHN R. CHRISTMAN                                 
|                                                         
|John R. Christman President & Principal Executive Officer



May
14, 2004



26
#### JOHN R. MC CLELLAN v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES, STATE POLICE RETIREMENT SYSTEM.

June 27, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.