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

<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAY-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAY-31-1997
<CASH>                                             74,410
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   1,855,055
<ALLOWANCES>                                       81,609
<INVENTORY>                                     1,460,064
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                3,697,443
<PP&E>                                          4,177,394
<DEPRECIATION>                                  2,459,443
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  5,563,749
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           3,598,230
<BONDS>                                         1,055,711
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                       641,561
<COMMON>                                           19,884
<OTHER-SE>                                        248,363
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    5,563,749
<SALES>                                        13,319,120
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               13,319,120
<CGS>                                           7,959,121
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   7,959,121
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                4,615,489
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    3,337
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                282,016
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   459,157
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (210,214)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               669,371
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                      669,371
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       0.30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0.30
        

</TABLE>
#### James River Equip., Inc. v. Tharp’s Excavating, Inc.

Case below: 179 N.C. App. 336

No. 541P06

1. Def’s (Mecklenburg Utilities) PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA05-79)

2. Pit’s NOA Based Upon a Constitutional Question

3. Pit’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

4. Def’s (Orange Co. Board of Education) Motion to Dismiss Appeal

5. Def’s (Orange Co. Board of Education) Conditional PDR

1. Denied 12/14/06

2.—

3. Denied 12/14/06

4. Allowed 12/14/06

5. Dismissed as Moot 12/14/06
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> BD
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           22825
<RECEIVABLES>                                   675102
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                                  0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                           295936
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                             185478
<PP&E>                                           14416
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1217384
<SHORT-TERM>                                    126475
<PAYABLES>                                      211729
<REPOS-SOLD>                                    272150
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                                  0
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                               91524
<LONG-TERM>                                      41257
<COMMON>                                           108
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      109510
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1217384
<TRADING-REVENUE>                                10762
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                             16642
<COMMISSIONS>                                    32423
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                    10353
<FEE-REVENUE>                                     7974
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                9357
<COMPENSATION>                                   45642
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   7700
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      4620
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .57
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .50
        

</TABLE>
#### Ginder KAUR, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-74909.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 12, 2009.*

Filed May 21, 2009.

Hardeep Singh Rai, Indus Law Group LLP, Rebecca Rudzianis, Esquire, Rai & Associates, PC, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Michelle Gorden Latour, Esquire, Assistant Director, Oil, Michele Yvette Frances Sarko, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: PREGERSON, CANBY and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Ginder Kaur, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration *605judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her motion to reopen proceedings and dismissing her untimely appeal from an IJ’s order denying asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion, *Iturribarria v. INS,*321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Kaur’s appeal from the IJ’s denial of her “motion to re-issue/ re-open.” *See id.*at 895-96. Kaur’s motion presented no new facts related to the underlying claim, and did not move to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel, but sought only to extend the period to file an appeal to the BIA. The regulations do not authorize an IJ to reopen a case on that basis. *See 8*C.F.R. §§ 1003.2(c) (stating requirements for motion to reopen).

We lack jurisdiction to consider the BIA’s discretionary decision not to certify Kaur’s untimely appeal to itself. *See Vlai-cu v. INS,*998 F.2d 758, 759 (9th Cir.1993); *cf. Ekimian v. INS,*303 F.3d 1153, 1157-59 (9th Cir.2002).

We also lack jurisdiction to consider Kaur’s challenges to the IJ’s underlying order denying relief, as the petition is not timely to that order. *See Andia v. Ashcroft,*359 F.3d 1181, 1183 n. 3 (9th Cir.2004) (per curiam).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

I,Rafael Pinedo, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

| (1)    | the  Annual Report on Form 10-K of Chancery Resources, Inc. for the year ended  November 30, 2010 (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 Chancery Resources,  Inc.                                                                     |

Dated:February 28, 2011

 

 

|   | */s/  Rafael Pinedo*           |
|--------|--------------------------------|
|   | Rafael  Pinedo                 |
|   | President  and Director        |
|   | (Principal  Executive Officer) |
|   | Chancery  Resources, Inc.      |

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906, or otherdocument authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signaturethat appears in typed form within the electronic version of this writtenstatement required by Section 906, has been provided to Chancery Resources,Inc. and will be retained by Chancery Resources, Inc. and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 

 

EXHIBIT 32.2
Exhibit 31(ii)
                                 --------------


                                 CERTIFICATIONS
                                 --------------

I, Steve Bailey, certify that:

         1.       I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on
                  Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period
                  covered by this report on Form 10-K of Alternative Loan Trust
                  2007-OA4 (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

         2.       Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports,
                  taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a
                  material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to
                  make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under
                  which such statements were made, not misleading with respect
                  to the period covered by this report;

         3.       Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and
                  other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for
                  the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange
                  Act periodic reports;

         4.       I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
                  servicer(s) and based on my knowledge and the compliance
                  review(s) conducted in preparing the servicer compliance
                  statement(s) required in this report under Item 1123 of
                  Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act
                  periodic reports, the servicer(s) have fulfilled their
                  obligations under the servicing agreement(s) in all material
                  respects; and

         5.       All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing
                  criteria for asset-backed securities and their related
                  attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing
                  criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included
                  in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB
                  and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as
                  an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in
                  this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described
                  in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form
                  10-K.

         In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
         information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: The
         Bank of New York, as Trustee.

     Date: March 26, 2008

          /s/ Steve Bailey
          ---------------------------
          Steve Bailey
          Senior Managing Director, Chief Executive Officer Loan Administration
          (Senior officer in charge of the servicing function of
          Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP)
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, John B. Wood, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Telos Corporation; 

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 makethe statements 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 flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) forthe registrant and we have: 

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

b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal controlover financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally acceptedaccounting principles; 

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors: 

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

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

Date: November 20, 2007
OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS^U,.

©FF8C8AL BUSSNESS wv®mzz®s <?** "^

Q^'K^^SS^ fXgg f't^rBam STATE OF TEXAS

PENALTY FOR \ |3

2/4/2015 "WVATEUSE ^;Wf

HARGROVE, MARCUS WAY^JB ,Tr,CtT5o.112-180-CR-A

' nrNzi bowes

02 1R 3

0002003152 FEB09 2015

MAILED FROM ZIPCODE 7 8 701

WR-81,965-04

ss

The Court has dismissed your application for wnt,of habeas corpus without written

order; the sentence has been discharged See Exparte Harrington, 310 S.W 3d

452 (Tex. Crim.App. 2010). ' '

W

Abel Acosta, Clerk (i

N3B

MARCUS WAYNE HARGROVE u tf

#1920120

\\
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A24A1283. BRENDA THOMAS v. CLAYTON COUNTY et al.

Appellant Brenda Thomas was terminated fromher employment attheClayton

County Sheriff’s Office, and the termination was affirmed by the Civil Service

Hearing Officer. Thomas filed a petition for certiorari in the superior court, which

dismissed the filing. Thomas then filed this direct appeal from the superior court’s

order.

Under OCGA§ 5-6-35 (a) (1), “[a]ppeals fromdecisions ofthe superior courts

reviewing decisions of . . . local administrative agencies . . . by petition for review”

must be made by filing an application for discretionary appeal. See Consolidated Govt.

of Columbus v. Barwick, 274 Ga. 176, 177 (1) (549 SE2d 73) (2001). Because Thomas

failed to comply with the discretionary appeal procedure, we lack jurisdiction to

address this appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

May 09, 2024

05/09/2024
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-29-1997
<CASH>                                           7,776
<SECURITIES>                                    69,034
<RECEIVABLES>                                   37,067
<ALLOWANCES>                                       250
<INVENTORY>                                     29,695
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               161,022
<PP&E>                                         399,379
<DEPRECIATION>                                 160,279
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 403,012
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           50,710
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           202
<OTHER-SE>                                     336,050
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   403,012
<SALES>                                        141,394
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               141,394
<CGS>                                           89,575
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   89,575
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,751
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   163
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 138
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,745
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,260
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,485
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,485
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.46
        

</TABLE>
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 Commerce

###### International Trade Administration

# AGENCY:

International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

# ACTION:

Notice of an open meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The U.S. Travel and Tourism Advisory Board (Board) will hold a meeting to discuss topics related to the travel and tourism industry. The Board was re-chartered on September 21, 2007, to advise the Secretary of Commerce on matters relating to the travel and tourism industry.

# DATES:

June 9, 2009.

*Time:*                         10 a.m. EDT.                    

# ADDRESSES:

                        Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 4830, Washington, DC 20230. Because of building security, all non-government attendees must pre-register. This program will be physically accessible to people with disabilities. Seating is limited and will be on a first come, first served basis. Requests for sign language interpretation, other auxiliary aids, or pre-registration, should be submitted no later than June 1, 2009, to J. Marc Chittum, U.S. Travel and Tourism Advisory Board, Room 4043, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone 202-482-4501,                         *Marc.Chittum@mail.doc.gov.*

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        J. Marc Chittum, U.S. Travel and Tourism Advisory Board, Room 4043, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230,                         *telephone:*                         202-482-4501,                         *e-mail:**Marc.Chittum@mail.doc.gov.*

Dated: May 14, 2009.

J. Marc Chittum,

Executive Secretary, U.S. Travel and Tourism Advisory Board.

[FR Doc. E9-11688 Filed 5-15-09; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P
#### Keiwan Sital, Respondent, v City of New York, Appellant.

Submitted October 5, 2009;

decided December 17, 2009

Reported below, 60 AD3d 465.

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution *(see Whitfield v City of New York,*90 NY2d 777, 780-781 [1997]).
#### In the Matter of Tyrone Schaffer, Petitioner, v Brian Fischer, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community-Supervision, Respondent.

[963 NYS2d 607]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

A sample of petitioner’s urine twice yielded a positive urinalysis test result, and he was accordingly charged in a misbehavior report with violating the prison disciplinary rule prohibiting drug use. He was found guilty as charged following a tier III disciplinary hearing, and his administrative appeal was unsuccessful. Petitioner then commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding.

We confirm. The misbehavior report, test documentation and hearing testimony provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt *(see Matter of Davis v Fischer,*98 AD3d 1154, 1155 [2012]; *Matter of Blake v Fischer, 87*AD3d 771, 772 [2011]). The testimony of the officers involved further established that a proper chain of custody over the sample was maintained, notwithstanding that the relevant documentation was not signed by the officers and incorrectly noted the date when the sample was taken *(see Matter of Davis v Fischer,*98 AD3d at 1155; *Matter of Geraci v Fischer,*63 AD3d 1467, 1468 [2009]; *Matter of Patterson v Goord,*266 AD2d 611, 611 [1999]). Petitioner’s related challenge to the adequacy of the misbehavior report, to the extent it is properly before us, has been examined and found to lack merit.

Peters, P.J., Mercure, Lahtinen and Stein, JJ., concur.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.