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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1998
<CASH>                                       4,497,879
<SECURITIES>                                13,146,950
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,346,268
<ALLOWANCES>                                    10,000
<INVENTORY>                                  5,001,990
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            24,502,460
<PP&E>                                      21,174,296
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,941,247
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              40,735,509
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,502,515
<BONDS>                                      1,951,240
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,487,943
<OTHER-SE>                                  33,793,811
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                40,735,509
<SALES>                                      4,849,635
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,889,798
<CGS>                                        3,855,675
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               21,002,523
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             521,198
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (13,461,315)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (13,461,315)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (13,461,315)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.94)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.94)
        

</TABLE>
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  About Grants 
-  Programs 

# NIFA Tribal Programs 

###### Share

Print FriendlyEmailTwitterFacebook

              -  NIFA Tribal Programs                   -  New Beginning for Tribal Students (NBTS) 
                -  Tribal Equity Grants Program 
                -  Tribal Colleges Extension Program 
                -  Tribal College Research Grant Program 
                -  Federally-Recognized Tribes Extension Program 

NIFA funds programs that promote learning, opportunity and health in Indian Country. The agency has five grants that specifically target Indian Country. Four of the grants support learning at the 1994 Land-Grants, also known as federally recognized tribal colleges. In addition, the Federally Recognized Tribes Extension Program (FRTEP) supports 1890 and 1862 Land-Grants who provide informal, community-based learning on reservations.

#### Funding for 1994 Land-Grant Institutions

The 1994 Land-Grants receive four main types of grants. Tribal College Equity supports formal education at these schools. Tribal College Extension supports informal, community-based learning such as farmer education, youth development and rural entrepreneurship. Tribal College Research helps the 1994 Land-Grants build scientific capacity and provide a strong foundation in research knowledge for students.

#### Tribal College Endowment Program (Capacity Grant)

The 1994 Land-Grants also have a targeted formula fund that can be used at the discretion of Institution leadership. The Tribal College Endowment program receives annual appropriations from Congress, but the institutions receive money from the interest earned during the previous year. The amount each school receives is based in part by the number of Native students attending the school. This is determined annually thorough the Indian Student Count.  Applicants who need to review their funding amount for the current Fiscal Year will go to NIFA's capacity page. 

#### Federally Recognized Tribes Extension Program

The Federally Recognized Tribes Extension Program (FRTEP) allows 1890 and 1862 Land-Grants to provide informal learning to support youth development and agricultural productivity. They complement the Extension efforts of the 1994 Land-Grants, often serving in states that do not have a 1994 Land-Grant.**Program Specialist:**  Ara Staab

Prali Chitnis

 

First American Land-Grant Consortium (FALCON)

The Intertribal Agriculture Council (IAC)

IAC Technical Assistance Program

American Indian College Fund

University of Arkansas: Indigenous Food and Agriculture Initiative

Erin Riley

Janyce Woodard

1994 Land-Grant Directory

Federally Recognized Tribes Extension Program Directory

1994 and 1862 Land-Grant Cooperation Progress Report

New Beginning for Tribal Students Program

Tribal Colleges Education Equity Grants (TCEG) Program

From Learning to Leading: Cultivating the Next Generation of Diverse Food and Agriculture Professionals (NextGen)

Tribal Colleges Research Grants Program

Tribal Colleges Extension Program: Special Emphasis

Education

Minority Serving Institutions
#### Baldwin v. Century Care Ctr., Inc.

Case below: 180 N.C. App. 475

No. 626P06

Pit’s Motion for Temporary Stay (COA06-380)

Denied 01/09/07
#### Ezequiel GODINEZ-CERVANTES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Up OUTLAW, Warden, RespondentAppellee.

No. 06-40036

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 24, 2006.

Ezequiel Godinez-Cervantes, U.S. Penitentiary Beaumont, Beaumont, TX, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Ezequiel Godinez-Cervantes, federal prisoner # 09671-079, was sentenced to a 240-month term of imprisonment following a 1997 guilty plea to distribution of heroin. *352Godinez-Cervantes appeals the district court’s dismissal of a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition challenging his conviction and sentence in light of *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). GodinezCervantes argues that he should be permitted to pursue § 2241 relief in accordance with the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

Godinez-Cervantes has not shown that the district court erred in construing his purported § 2241 petition as an unauthorized § 2255 motion over which it lacked jurisdiction. *Tolliver v. Dobre,*211 F.3d 876, 877-78 (5th Cir.2000). He has also faded to establish that his *Booker*claim is cognizable under the savings clause of § 2255. *Padilla v. United States,*416 F.3d 424, 427 (5th Cir.2005). Consequently, we AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of the petition.

*

 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.
Exhibit 21.1



Subsidiaries of Plains Exploration & Production Company



|                                    |  |                            
|----------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------
|Name of Subsidiary                  |  | Jurisdiction ofOrganization
|Arguello Inc                        |  | Delaware                   
|Nuevo Ghana Inc.                    |  | Delaware                   
|Nuevo International Inc.            |  | Delaware                   
|Nuevo Offshore Company              |  | Delaware                   
|Nuevo Resources Inc.                |  | Delaware                   
|Pacific Interstate Offshore Company |  | California                 
|Plains Resources International Inc. |  | Delaware                   
|PXP Gulf Coast Inc.                 |  | Delaware                   
|PXP Louisiana Inc.                  |  | Delaware                   
|PXP Louisiana L.L.C.                |  | Delaware                   
|PXP Permian Inc.                    |  | Delaware                   
|PXP Texas Inc.                      |  | Delaware                   
|PXP Texas Limited Partnership       |  | Texas
#### Washburne *v.*Pintsch and others.

*(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.*

June 6, 1883.)

■1. Agency—Promise of Compensation—Moral Obligation.

Where the owner of property is induced to believe that another, who has been trying to sell such property on speculation for his own benefit alone, was clearly acting as his agent in the matter, and that he is under a moral obligation to compensate him for his trouble, promises to do so, such promise is without color of consideration and void.

2. Instruction to Find for Defendant.

Where, if the case had been left to the jury and a verdict had been found for the plaintiff, it would have been the duty of the court to set it aside as contrary to the evidence, it was correct to instruct them to find for the defendant.

At Law.

*Armstrong é Briggs,*for plaintiffs.

*Salomon & Dulon,*for defendants.

Wallace, J.

The correspondence between Schoenrock and Pichón shows conclusively that when the interviews between the former and *583the defendants took place at Berlin, the defendants were under no legal or moral obligations to Schoenroek to compensate him for his services regarding the sale of their patents. He had been trying to make a profit as a speculator out of their property by selling the patents to a syndicate, and found failure at hand unless he could induce the defendants to recognize him as their agent. He induced the defendants to believe that his efforts had been prompted by the assurance of their agent at London, Mr. Pichón, that he should receive a commission for his services, and that, acting upon these assurances, ho had interested the New York syndicate in the purchase of the patents. In the interviews at Berlin the defendants, according to his testimony,- promised to allow him a commission in case the syndicate should buy the patents. This promise was made upon a misconception of the relations Schoenroek sustained to them in the transaction. The letter of the defendants to Mr. Blanchard, of June 3, 1879, is consistent with this theory. If he had really been acting for them the question would be presented whether their promise in recognition of his services could not be enforced, notwithstanding he had no legal claim against them for commissions at the time. But as he had been acting for himself instead, their promise, made upon the assumption that they were under a moral or equitable obligation to him, was without color of consideration.

If the case had been left to the jury and a verdict had been found for the plaintiff, it would have been the duty of the court to set it aside as contrary to the evidence. It was, therefore, correct to instruct them to find for the defendant.

The motion for a new trial is denied.
#### Wachovia Bank v. Clean River Corp.

Case below: 178 N.C. App. 528

441P06

Defs/Third-Party Pits’ (Assurance Co. of America, et al.) PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA05-1364)

Denied 01/25/07

Edmunds, J., Recused
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 Westford Technology Ventures, L.P.
(the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Jeffrey T. Hamilton, Chief Financial Officer of the
Partnership, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.
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
Partnership.


/s/ Jeffrey T. Hamilton
--------------------------
Jeffrey T. Hamilton
President, Hamilton Capital Management, Inc.

December 9, 2003
<PAGE>




                                                                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

           The undersigned executive officers of the registrant hereby certify
that this Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained herein fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the registrant.

                                             Parkvale Financial Corporation


Dated:  February 8, 2005
                                             By: /s/ Robert J. McCarthy, Jr.
                                                 -----------------------------
                                             Robert J. McCarthy, Jr.
                                             Director, President and
                                             Chief Executive Officer

Dated:  February 8, 2005
                                             By: /s/ Timothy G. Rubritz
                                                 -----------------------------
                                             Timothy G. Rubritz
                                             Vice President-Treasurer and
                                             Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          20,908
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                20,908
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  20,908
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           89,910
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        18,657
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    20,908
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,282
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,576
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,858)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,858)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,858)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
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 CNH Holdings Company on Form
10-QSB for the period  ending June 30, 2005,  as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Cynthia Garr, Interim
C.F.O. 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, to the best of
my knowledge and belief:

         (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/    Cynthia Garr
Cynthia Garr
Interim C.F.O.,
Executive Vice-President of Corporate Development,
and Director
(Principal Financial Officer)


August 15, 2005


A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
has been  provided  to the  Company  and will be  retained  by the  Company  and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Louis RAMIREZ, III, aka Seal F, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-50825.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 16, 2006.*

Filed Oct. 18, 2006.

Becky S. Walker, Esq., Ellyn M. Lindsay, Esq., USLA-Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Roger S. Hanson, Esq., Law Offices of Roger S. Hanson, Santa Ana, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

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 **

Louis Ramirez, III, appeals from the restitution order imposed following his conviction for mail and wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 1341, 1343 and 2326. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Ramirez contends that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment rights by ordering restitution in an amount that exceeded what was supported by the jury’s verdict. This contention is foreclosed by *United States v. Bussell,*414 F.3d 1048, 1060 (9th Cir.2005) (restitution orders are unaffected by the Supreme Court’s decision in *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005)).

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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Joseph II., Respondent, v Superintendent of Southport Correctional Facility et al., Appellants. In the Matter of State of New York, Appellant, v Humberto G., Respondent.

Submitted August 2, 2010;

decided September 23, 2010

Motion for reargument denied *[see*15 NY3d 126 (2010)].
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 104 (Tuesday, June 2, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 26378]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-12754]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army


Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation Board of 
Visitors; Meeting

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the schedule and summary agenda for the 
summer meeting of the Board of Visitors (BoV) for the Western 
Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC). Notice of this 
meeting is required under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 
92-463). The Board's charter was renewed on February 1, 2008 in 
compliance with the requirements set forth in Title 10 U.S.C. 2166.
    Date: Thursday, June 18, 2009.
    Time: 9 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
    Location: Senate Russell Building, SR 236, Washington, DC.
    Proposed Agenda: The WHINSEC BoV will be briefed on activities at 
the Institute since the last Board meeting on December 5, 2008 as well 
as receive other information appropriate to its interests

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: WHINSEC Board of Visitors Secretariat 
at (703) 614-1452.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting is open to the public. Pursuant 
to the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 and 41 CFR 102-3.140(c), 
members of the public or interested groups may submit written 
statements to the advisory committee for consideration by the committee 
members. Written statements should be no longer than two type-written 
pages and sent via fax to (703) 614-8920 by 5 p.m. EST on Monday, June 
15, 2009 for consideration at this meeting. In addition, public 
comments by individuals and organizations may be made from 10:45 a.m. 
to 11:15 a.m. during the meeting. Public comments will be limited to 
three minutes each. Anyone desiring to make an oral statement must 
register by sending a fax to (703) 614-8920 with their name, phone 
number, e-mail address, and the full text of their comments (no longer 
than two type-written pages) by 5 p.m. EST on Monday, June 15, 2009. 
The first ten requestors will be notified by 5 p.m. EST on Tuesday, 
June 16, 2009 of their time to address the Board during the public 
comment forum. All other comments will be retained for the record. 
Public seating is limited and will be available on a first come, first 
serve basis.

Brenda S. Bowen,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. E9-12754 Filed 6-1-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-P
The District Court of the 13th Judicial District. County of Yellowstone.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. JOSHUA SCHIED, Defendant.

CAUSE NO. DC-08-562 DECISION

On October 1,2009, the defendant was sentenced as follows: Count I: Sixty-five (65) years in the Montana State Prison, with fifteen (15) years suspended, for the offense of Aggravated Burglary, a felony; Count II: Sixty-five (65) years in the Montana State Prison, with fifteen (15) years suspended, for the offense of Aggravated Assault, a felony; and Count III: Sixty-five (65) years in the Montana State Prison, with fifteen (15) years suspended, for the offense of Tampering with or Fabricating Physical Evidence, a felony. Counts I, II and III shall run concurrently. The defendant was designated a Persistent Felony Offender for sentencing.

*19On February 4, 2010, the defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The defendant was present and was represented by Katie Barber. The state was represented by Sheila Kolar, who appeared via videoconference.

Before hearing the application, the defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana provides that “the sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive.” (§46-18-904(3), MCA).

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

Done in open Court this 4th day of February, 2010.

DATED this 23rd day of February, 2010.

Chairperson, Hon. Blair Jones, Member, Hon. Richard Simonton and Member, Hon. Ray Dayton.