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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-28-1997
<CASH>                                              29
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   29,367
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     41,865
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                74,640
<PP&E>                                           3,648
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 129,946
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           29,085
<BONDS>                                         65,205
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,000
<OTHER-SE>                                      35,647
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   129,946
<SALES>                                         56,794
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                           42,265
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   52,319
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   369
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,261
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,845
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,142
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,703
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.18
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
32











CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE


SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002











The
undersigned executive officers of Hometown Bancorp, Inc. (the “Registrant”)
hereby certify that this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 2008 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Registrant.











By:
                          
                          /s/ThomasF.GibneyName:
                          Thomas
      F. GibneyTitle:
                          President,
      Chief Executive Officer and DirectorBy:
                          
                          /s/StephenW.DederickName:
                          Stephen W. DederickTitle:
                          Chief
      Financial Officer and Vice
President











Date:
March 31, 2009
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 Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-65,598]

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on March 16, 2009 in response to a petition filed on behalf of workers of Lincoln Electric/Harris Products Group, Mason, Ohio.

The petitioners have requested that the petition be withdrawn. Therefore, the investigation under this petition has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 9th day of April 2009.

Linda G. Poole,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-10882 Filed 5-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
| (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. |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:       April 15, 2008 | By:    | /s/ Darrin      M. Ocasio                                   |   |
|----------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                             |   | Darrin      M. Ocasio                                            |   |
|                             |   | Principal      Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer |   |
|                             |   |                                                             |   |
****************************************************** The ‘‘officially released’’ date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ‘‘officially released’’ date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ‘‘officially released’’ date.
All opinions are subjecttomodificationandtechnical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or ConnecticutAppellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative.
The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears onthe Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service andinthe Connecticut LawJournal andboundvolumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.

******************************************************STATE v. COTE—DISSENT 

### EVELEIGH, J., concurring and dissenting. I agree with part II of the majority opinion and join that part ofthe opinion. For all ofthe reasons stated in my concurrence and dissent in State v. Kalil, 314 Conn. ,

, A.3d (2014), whichaddress identicalissues

as those presented in this case, I respectfully dissent frompartIofthemajorityopinion. Accordingly, Iwould

reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court with instructions to remand the matter to the trial court for resentencing. Therefore, Irespectfullydissentfrompart I of the opinion.
Exhibit 10-d 

COMPENSATION OF DIRECTORS


     The retainer
for Board service for non-employee directors of ArvinMeritor is $55,000 per
year. No additional retainer is paid for service as committee
members.

     The Chairman of the Audit Committee
receives an additional retainer of $10,000 per year, and the Chairman of the
Compensation Committee receives an additional retainer of $7,000 per year. The
Chairmen of the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee and the
Environmental and Social Responsibility Committee each receive an additional
retainer of $5,000 per year. The Presiding Director receives an additional
retainer of $10,000 per year. 

     A director may elect to defer payment of
all or part of the cash retainer fees to a later date, with interest on deferred
amounts accruing quarterly at a rate equal to 120% of the Federal long-term rate
set each month by the Secretary of the Treasury. Each director also has the
option each year to defer all or any portion of the cash retainer by electing to
receive restricted shares or restricted share units that could be forfeited if
certain conditions are not satisfied. The restricted shares or restricted share
units in lieu of the cash retainer are valued at the closing price of the Common
Stock on the New York Stock Exchange – Composite Transactions reporting system
on the date each retainer payment would otherwise be made in cash.

     After each Annual Meeting of Shareowners,
each non-employee director receives an equity grant under the 2004 Directors
Stock Plan. The grant in 2007 consisted of 4,500 restricted share units. The
grant in 2008 is expected to consist of shares of Common Stock of ArvinMeritor,
in an amount to be determined at the time of the grant. A non-employee director
who is elected to the Board during the fiscal year receives a pro rata portion
of the annual grant.

     Non-employee directors also receive fees
for attendance at committee meetings. These attendance fees are in the amount of
$1,500 for each meeting in person and $750 for each telephone
meeting.

     Directors who are also employees of
ArvinMeritor or a subsidiary of ArvinMeritor do not receive compensation for
serving as directors.
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Tommy W. Davis, Appellant

No. 06-13-00005-CV v.

Northeast Texas Farmers Co-Op, Appellee

Appeal from the County Court at Law of 

Hopkins County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. CV 

41189). Opinion delivered by Chief Justice 

Morriss, Justice Carter and Justice Moseley

participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that the appeal should be dismissed 

for want of prosecution. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

We further order that the appellant, Tommy W. Davis, pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED MAY 8, 2013

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
## Contact Information

Bethesda MD20892-4872

zhengx4@mail.nih.gov

October 2022

Back to Top
Karen F. Long, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Karen Oposch, 

Defendant. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Civil Action No. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

FILED 

AUG 26 2010 

eleark, u.s. DistrIct and 

ankruptcy Courts 

t~- rtf-55 

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiff s pro se complaint and 

application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the in forma pauperis 

application and dismiss the case because the complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading 

requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Pro se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 

656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires 

complaints to contain "( 1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction 

[and] (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009); Oralsky v. CIA, 355 

F.3d 661,668-71 (D.C. Cir. 2004). The Rule 8 standard ensures that defendants receive fair 

notice of the claim being asserted so that they can prepare a responsive answer and an adequate 

defense and determine whether the doctrine of res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 

F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). 
Plaintiff, a resident of Ox on Hill, Maryland, sues an individual located in Alexandria, 

Virginia. The complaint, consisting of names and disjointed phrases, fails to provide any notice 

of a claim. A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. 

Date: August 1&,2010 

Unite tates Dlstnct Judge 

2
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Carlton H. Baab, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Quarterly Report of TigerLogic Corporation on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of TigerLogic Corporation.



By:

/s/ Carlton H. BaabName:

Carlton H. BaabTitle:

President and Chief Executive Officer


I, Thomas Lim, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of TigerLogic Corporation on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of TigerLogic Corporation.



By:

/s/ Thomas LimName:

Thomas LimTitle:

Chief Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT
        32.2**
   **Pursuant
        to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**
   In
        connection with Amendment No. 2  to the annual report of Nano-Proprietary,
        Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2004, as
        filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
        “Report”), I, Douglas P, Baker, the Chief Financial Officer 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. The
        information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
        the financial conditions and results of operations of the Company.
  Date:
                  September 7, 2005
              /s/
                  Douglas P. Baker
                Douglas P. Baker
                Chief
                  Financial Officer
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification Pursuant to Section 1350of Chapter 63**

**of Title 18 of the United StatesCode**

 

I,John E. Rooney, the chief executive officer of United States CellularCorporation, certify that (i) the quarterly report on Form 10-Q forthe first quarter of 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the informationcontained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of United States CellularCorporation.

 

 
|   |  /s/ John E.  Rooney |
|--------|---------------------------|
|   | John E. Rooney            |
|   | May 7, 2008               |

 

A signed original ofthis written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002 has been provided to United States Cellular Corporation and will beretained by U.S. Cellular and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

----
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-30103

Summary Calendar

 

JERRY L. ROBINETT,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

DELGADO COMMUNITY COLLEGE; LOUISIANA COMMUNITY AND TECHNICAL

COLLEGE SYSTEM; UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA SYSTEM,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 99-CV-2545-T

- - - - - - - - - -

August 31, 2001

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jerry L. Robinett appeals from the district court’s grant of

summary judgment for the defendants. He argues that: (1) Delgado

Community College’s policy for the 1994-1995 school year

regarding satisfactory academic progress violated federal law;

(2) he had a property right in the receipt of federal Pell Grant

benefits; (3) he was not given adequate process when such

benefits were denied to him; (4) the district court erred by

assuming that unnamed state employees, whom Robinett sought to
No. 01-30103

-2-

add to his complaint, were being sued only in their official

capacities; (5) the district court erred by holding that he

failed to cite sufficient evidence for his conspiracy claim;

(6) his conspiracy claim was not prescribed; and (7) the district

court erred by holding that his motion to supplement was dilatory

or futile. Although Robinett indicated on his notice of appeal

that he sought to appeal the denial of his FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e)

motion, he has abandoned such issue by failing to challenge the

denial on appeal. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 223-24

(5th Cir. 1993). Similarly, because he has failed to challenge

the district court’s holdings that the named defendants are

immune from the instant lawsuit and that his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

claims based on incidents from the 1994-1995 school year were

prescribed, he has abandoned such issues on appeal. See id.

This court reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo. See

Green v. Touro Infirmary, 992 F.2d 537, 538 (5th Cir. 1993). 

Summary judgment is appropriate when, considering all of the

admissible evidence and drawing all reasonable inferences in the

light most favorable to the nonmoving party, there is no genuine

issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to

judgment as a matter of law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c); Little v.

Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994)(en banc).

As Robinett has failed to establish that he a

constitutionally-protected right in the receipt of federal Pell

Grant benefits, he has failed to establish a due process claim. 

See Bryan v. City of Madison, Miss., 213 F.3d 267, 274-75 (5th

Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 1081 (2001). Furthermore,
No. 01-30103

-3-

he failed to provide sufficient evidentiary support to show the

existence of a conspiracy or that such conspiracy affected his

constitutional rights.

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shelton PURDUE, a.k.a. Shelton M. Perdue, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-16006

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

April 29, 2009.

Chet Kaufman, Federal Public Defender, Tallahassee, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.

*814E. Bryan Wilson, Tallahassee, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Before BIRCH, HULL and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Randolph Murrell, appointed counsel for Shelton Purdue, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and has filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 822 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 822

   To prevent the retroactive application of changes to Trans-Alaska 
             Pipeline Quality Bank valuation methodologies.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 15, 2005

 Ms. Murkowski (for herself and Mr. Stevens) introduced the following 
bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To prevent the retroactive application of changes to Trans-Alaska 
             Pipeline Quality Bank valuation methodologies.

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

SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS.

    In this Act:
            (1) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Federal 
        Energy Regulatory Commission.
            (2) TAPS quality bank valuation methodologies.--The term 
        ``TAPS quality bank valuation methodologies'' means valuation 
        methodologies applied for the purpose of establishing monetary 
        adjustments paid by or to shippers of oil on the Trans-Alaska 
        Pipeline (as authorized by the Trans-Alaska Pipeline 
        Authorization Act (43 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) through the 
        operation of a quality bank to compensate for differentials in 
        the value of shippers' oil commingled in the pipeline.

SEC. 2. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION REVIEW OF TRANS-ALASKA 
              PIPELINE CARRIER TARIFFS.

    Pursuant to the ratemaking authority of the Commission under 
section 60501 of title 49, United States Code, in carrying out a review 
of Trans-Alaska Pipeline carrier tariffs, the Commission shall not 
approve any retroactive application of TAPS quality bank valuation 
methodologies.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    This Act applies to orders of the Commission issued after December 
31, 2005.
                                 <all>
```