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


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE DECEMBER
31, 1998 BALANCE SHEET AND THE STATEMENT OF INCOME AND RETAINED EARNINGS FOR
YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S DECEMBER 31, 1998 10-K
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 10-K.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         121,495
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,572,256<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,693,751
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              83,193,751<F2>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,343
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  2,726,700        
<COMMON>                                         2,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  80,458,708<F3>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                83,193,751
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,897,115<F4>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  176,120
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              5,720,995
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          5,709,995
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 5,709,995
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.84
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.84
<FN>
<F1>Receivables are due from affiliated companies.
<F2>An investment in preferred shares of Chieftan International (U.S.) Inc., at
cost, is $78,500,000 has been included in total assets.
<F3>Additional paid-in-capital of $14,998,000 (attributable to common stock) and
$60,676,203 (attributable to preferred stock) has been added to retained
earnings of $4,784,505 in calculating other stockholders' equity.
<F4>Revenues are earned exclusively from transactions with parent company.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### Astoria Federal Savings & Loan Association/Fidelity New York FSB, Respondent, v Marilyn Lane, Appellant, and Frances Turner et al., Intervenors-Respondents.

Submitted June 1, 2010;

decided July 1, 2010

Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied *[see*14 NY3d 880 (2010)]. Cross motions for the imposition of sanctions denied.
Exhibit 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF STERLING BANCSHARES, INC.

The following is a list of the subsidiaries of Sterling Bancshares, Inc.:



|                                                                                                                                    |  |                                                                                                                      
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Sterling Bancorporation, Inc. A Delaware corporation PO Box 631 Wilmington, Delaware 19899                                          |  | Sterling Bank A Texas state banking
association 2550 North Loop West, Suite 600 Houston, Texas
77092                 
|                                                                                                                                    | 
|Sterling Bancshares Statutory Trust One A Connecticut statutory business trust 2550 North Loop West, Suite 600 Houston, Texas 77092 |  | Sterling Bancshares Capital Trust II A Delaware
statutory business trust 15000 Northwest Freeway Houston, Texas
77040
|                                                                                                                                    | 
|Sterling Bancshares Capital Trust III A Delaware statutory business trust 15000 Northwest Freeway Houston, Texas 77040              |  |
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 97 (Thursday, May 21, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 23892]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-11855]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,469]


The Hershey Company, Hershey, PA; Notice of Termination of 
Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on March 4, 2009 in response to a petition 
filed on behalf of workers at The Hershey Company, Hershey, 
Pennsylvania. The workers at the subject facility produce candy.
    The petitioners have requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 28th day of April 2009.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-11855 Filed 5-20-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Garrett Don SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-4103.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 4, 2006.

Decided: Oct. 31, 2006.

Ray Coit Yarborough, Jr., Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. Isaac Louis Johnson, Jr., Office of the United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Garrett Don Smith pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than fifty grams of actual methamphetamine, more than 500 grams of methamphetamine, and a quantity of Ecstasy, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000). The district court sentenced him to a 135-month, term of imprisonment. Smith’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), challenging the adequacy of the plea colloquy but stating that, in his view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Smith was advised of his right *299to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. We affirm.

Counsel raises as a potential issue the adequacy of the plea colloquy in light of the district court’s failure to inform Smith that any false statement could be used against him in a prosecution for perjury, *see*Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(b)(1)(A); that he could persist in his plea of not guilty, *see*Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(b)(1)(B); that he had the right to counsel, *see*Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(b)(1)(D); and that he had the right to compel the attendance of witnesses, *see*Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(b)(1)(E). Because Smith did not move in the district court to withdraw his guilty plea on the grounds raised on appeal, any error in the Rule 11 hearing is reviewed for plain error. *United States v. Martinez,*277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir.2002) (discussing standard of review). Our careful review of the record on appeal convinces us that the district court’s omissions did not affect Smith’s substantial rights. *See id,.; United States v. Goins,*51 F.3d 400, 402 (4th Cir.1995) (discussing factors courts should consider in determining whether substantial rights affected in decision to plead guilty).

In accordance with *Anders,*we have reviewed the entire record for any meritorious issues and have found none. Accordingly, we affirm Smith’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. 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*
exv10w8



 





Exhibit 10.8




Northfield Bank

Senior Management Supplemental Benefit Plans

January 2007




Disability Program




Short Term Disability (STD)



In lieu of participation in the PTO Bank, senior management (as defined for Reg. O purposes) will
be paid their full salary for the duration of their short-term disability but not to exceed the
state laws of 26 weeks or after which long-term disability benefits becomes available. Any
payments under the Group STD Policy will be reimbursed to the Bank.




Long Term Disability (LTD)



The Bank maintains a LTD policy for all full time employees and pays the premiums thereon. Senior
management (as defined for Reg. O purposes) will be responsible for payment of their share of the
cost of the Group LTD Policy premium. (When premiums on a LTD policy are paid by the insured, the
benefits received are exempt from income taxes.) The Bank will make a bonus payment to senior
management in recognition of their payment of their own LTD premiums in an amount determined solely
by the Bank.




Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation Plan



The bank maintains a Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation Plan for senior management (prior to
formalization of this plan certain executives were included in the plan as part of the
consideration of their employment and will be grandfathered). The plan encompasses both a
voluntary compensation deferral plan, and a “make-up” payment plan to compensate for benefits that
would otherwise be limited due to IRS qualified plan limitations (SERP).



Under the voluntary deferred compensation portion of the plan, eligible executives may voluntarily
defer a portion of their salary or bonus on a pre-tax basis. The SERP portion of the plan “makes
up” benefits that would have been paid under the IRS qualified plans but were limited as a result
of qualified plan compensation limitations, time in service issues, or other eligibility reasons.
(Please see a copy of the plan for details.)




Approved by Compensation Committee 11/20/2006
#### Jaime Perez, an Infant, by His Mother and Natural Guardian, Nancy Torres, et al., Appellants, v City of New York, Respondent.

Submitted December 6, 2010;

decided January 11, 2011

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.
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of BSD Medical Corporation (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended May 31, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Dennis
P. Gauger, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) of the Company,
hereby 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.







/s/ Dennis P.
      GaugerDennis
      P. GaugerChief
      Financial Officer(Principal
      Accounting Officer)July
      10, 2008
#### James G. GARCIA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Anthony P. KANE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 03-55889.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 16, 2006.*

Filed Oct. 18, 2006.

Shakti Murthy, Esq., Santa Monica, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.

G. Tracey Letteau, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: T.G. NELSON, W. FLETCHER and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner James G. Garcia appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as time-barred. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Garcia contends that he is entitled to statutory tolling during the time period from when he filed his first state post-conviction petition until the time the California Supreme Court denied his third petition filed in that court. Because Garcia’s third petition was denied on procedural grounds, the district court did not err in concluding that it was not part of the earlier round of filings and did not toll the statute of limitations. *See King v. Roe,*340 F.3d 821, 823 (9th Cir.2003) (per cu-riam); *see also Pace v. DiGuglielmo,*544 U.S. 408, 413, 125 S.Ct. 1807, 161 L.Ed.2d 669 (2005).

Garcia contends that he is entitled to equitable tolling of the statute of limitations because the district court affirmatively misled him regarding the implications of dismissing his previously-filed 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We reject this contention because the district court in the previous case presented accurate options available *159to Garcia. *See Brambles v. Duncan,*412 F.3d 1066, 1070-71 (9th Cir.2005).

The motion of appellant’s counsel Shakti Murthy, Esq., to withdraw as appointed counsel is granted. Murthy shall serve this memorandum disposition on appellant Garcia and shall, within 14 days of the filing date of this order, file a proof of service with this court.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
[935 NE2d 809, 909 NYS2d 17]

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jose Rivera, Appellant.

Decided September 23, 2010

*845APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Center for Appellate Litigation,*New York City *(Susan H. Salomon*and *Robert S. Dean*of counsel), for appellant.

*Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney,*Bronx *(Karen Swiger*and *Peter D. Coddington*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and a new trial ordered.

There was a reasonable basis in the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to defendant for finding defendant not guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03 [1] [b] [possessing a “loaded firearm” “with intent to use the same unlawfully against another”]), and yet guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 265.01 [1] [possessing any firearm]). *(See People v Discala,*45 NY2d 38, 41-42 [1978].) Defendant’s request for a lesser included offense charge should therefore have been granted.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed, etc.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-11194

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

SALVADOR VALADEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:12-CR-65-4

Before PRADO, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Salvador Valadez has moved for 

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).

Valadez has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the 

relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s 

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 29, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 12-11194 Document: 00513097086 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/29/2015
No. 12-11194

2

Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is 

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 12-11194 Document: 00513097086 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/29/2015
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 Diatect International Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), We,
Patrick Carr, Principal Executive Officer and Robert Rudman, Principal
Accounting Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





May
      20, 2009
              /s/ Patrick CarrPatrick
      CarrPrincipal
      Executive OfficerMay
      20, 2009
              /s/ Robert RudmanRobert
      RudmanPrincipal
      Accounting OfficerPrincipal
      Accounting Officer
# National Safe Boating Week, 2009

Each year, millions of Americans take to our Nation's waterways for recreational boating. Whether paddling down a rushing river or cruising on a serene lake, boaters are attracted to the incomparable feeling of being out on the water. They also are drawn by opportunities to exercise, appreciate nature, enjoy quiet solitude, or relax with family and friends.

Unfortunately, accidents can occur as Americans participate in this popular pastime. Many serious incidents are preventable, and during National Safe Boating Week, I ask Americans to learn more about how to enjoy our Nation's waters safely and responsibly.

Simple steps can greatly reduce the chances of an accident. In preparation for the boating season, Americans can take boating safety courses and get a free vessel safety check. These steps can help prevent problems before they happen and prepare boaters for problems that may occur while on the water. Boaters should also wear a Coast Guard-approved life jacket and never boat under the influence of drugs or alcohol. These critical precautions can save lives and help ensure a fulfilling experience.

Each year during this week, the United States Coast Guard partners with organizations to educate and inform the public about safe boating. I join them in calling upon Americans to protect themselves and others while boating.

Recognizing the importance of safe boating practices, the Congress, by joint resolution approved June 4, 1958 (36 U.S.C. 131), as amended, has authorized and requested the President to annually proclaim the 7-day period prior to Memorial Day weekend as “National Safe Boating Week.”

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim May 16 through May 22, 2009, as National Safe Boating Week. I encourage all Americans to join in observing this occasion by learning more about boating safety and committing themselves to safe practices on the water.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fifteenth day of May, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.

[FR Doc. E9-11919

Billing code 3195-W9-P
#### In re A.A.W.

Case below: 180 N.C. App. 690

No. 029P07

Respondent’s (Mother) PDR Under N.C.G.S. 7A-31 (COA06-550)

Denied 05/03/07
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-23-00992-CR

EX PARTE Luis Miguel BERNAL MORALES

From the County Court, Kinney County, Texas

Trial Court No. 11134CR

Honorable Susan D. Reed, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Irene Rios, Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: March 6, 2024

DISMISSED 

Appellant, Luis Miguel Bernal Morales, has filed a motion to dismiss his appeal. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 42.2(a). The motion, which is signed by Bernal Morales and his counsel, complies with 

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a). See id. No opinion has issued.

Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismiss this appeal. See id. We dismiss any other 

pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM
#### Dong Soo Kim, Appellant, v Sheryl L. Kottler, Respondent.

[873 NYS2d 322]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Mahon, J.), entered November 26, 2007, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that he did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendant’s motion for summary judgment is denied.

The defendant met her prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning *671of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident *(see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345 [2002]; *Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). In opposition, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether he sustained serious injuries to his cervical and/or lumbar spine under the permanent consequential and/or the significant limitation of use categories of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident *(see Williams v Clark,*54 AD3d 942 [2008]; *Casey v Mas Transp., Inc.,*48 AD3d 610 [2008]; *Green v Nara Car & Limo, Inc.,*42 AD3d 430 [2007]). The plaintiffs treating physician Dr. Jae O. Park opined, based on his contemporaneous and more recent examinations of the plaintiff, as well as upon his review of the plaintiffs magnetic resonance imaging reports, which showed, inter alia, disc bulges in the cervical and lumbar spine as well as a disc herniation in the lumbar spine, that the plaintiffs lumbar and cervical injuries and observed range of motion limitations were permanent, and causally related to the subject accident. He further concluded that the injuries amounted to a permanent consequential limitation of use of the cervical and lumbar spine as well as a significant limitation of use of those regions.

Contrary to the defendant’s assertions, the plaintiffs affidavit adequately explained any lengthy gap in his treatment history *(see Black v Robinson,*305 AD2d 438 [2003]). Rivera, J.E, Florio, Angiolillo, McCarthy and Chambers, JJ., concur.