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

<ARTICLE> UT
<CIK> 0000006879
<NAME> APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    2,935,115
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                     29,621
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         338,444
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        56,928
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                 451,272
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,811,380
<COMMON>                                       260,458
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      575,380
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            208,472
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>               1,044,310
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          190,000
<PREFERRED>                                     29,815
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         1,365,834
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                  60,700
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                        8
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                     36,857
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                15,112
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>               1,068,744
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                3,811,380
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                    1,624,869
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            80,396
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   1,301,597
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   1,381,993
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        242,876
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                 128 
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 243,004
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       109,315
<NET-INCOME>                                   133,689
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                     15,938
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  117,751
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                       108,300
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       82,082
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         275,743
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F1>
<FN>
<F1> All common stock owned by parent company; no EPS required.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23



                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



The Plan Committee
FINA Capital Accumulation Plan:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (No.
2-89230) on Form S-8 of FINA, Inc. of our report dated April 17, 1998, relating
to the statements of net assets available for plan benefits of the FINA Capital
Accumulation Plan as of December 31, 1997 and 1996, and the related statements
of changes in net assets available for plan benefits for the years then ended,
and the related supplemental schedules, which report appears in the December 31,
1997 annual report on Form 11-K of the FINA Capital Accumulation Plan.




                                            KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


Dallas, Texas
April 30,  1998
EXHIBIT 32



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 Annual Report of Baldor Electric Company (the Company) on
Form 10-K for the period ending January 1, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John A. McFarland, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |     |  |                                                   
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | --------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 16, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ John A. McFarland                             
|                     |  |     |  | John A. McFarland                                 
|                     |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer of Baldor Electric Company



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 Annual Report of Baldor Electric Company (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending January 1, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Ronald E. Tucker, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |     |  |                           
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | --------------------------
|Date: March 16, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ Ronald E. Tucker      
|                     |  |     |  | Ronald E. Tucker          
|                     |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer   
|                     |  |     |  | of Baldor Electric Company
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Bill Williams, Appellant.

Submitted April 30, 2012;

decided May 3, 2012

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Lynn W.L. Fa-hey, Esq., Appellate Advocates, 2 Rector Street, 10th Floor, New York, NY 10006 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
EXHIBIT 11.1

STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS(Millions of Canadian dollars)
(shares in millions)

|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     | Six Months Ended June 30,
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | -------------------------
|BASIC                                                                                                                                                                                                                                | 2000                     
|Weighted average shares outstanding                                                                                                                                                                                                  | 743.5                    
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |                          
|Income (loss) from operations in accordance with U.S. GAAP                                                                                                                                                                           | $(27.0)                  
|Basic earnings (loss) per share in accordance with U.S. GAAP                                                                                                                                                                         | $(0.04)                  
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |                          
|DILUTED                                                                                                                                                                                                                              |                          
|Diluted earnings per share are not computed as the effect of the conversions of convertible debentures and the exercise of stock options are antidilutive. The convertible debentures are convertible at U.S.$0.35 per common share.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cheree Ann COCKRELL, a/k/a, Cheree Ann Helms, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 06-4337.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 31, 2006.

Decided: Nov. 3, 2006.

Louis Carr Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, William S. Trivette, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Robert Albert Jamison Lang, Office of the United States Attorney, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

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

*311PER CURIAM:

Cheree Ann Cockrell pled guilty without a plea agreement to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). The district court sentenced Cockrell as an armed career criminal pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1) (2000), which carries a statutory mandatory minimum sentence of fifteen years’ imprisonment. Cockrell received the minimum 180 months’ imprisonment.

On appeal, Cockrell’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), asserting that there exist no meritorious issues for appeal but contending that the district court imposed an unreasonable sentence because Cockrell has been rehabilitated, and no further punishment is necessary.* However, as noted by both the district court and Cockrell’s counsel, the term of imprisonment imposed in this case is the mandatory minimum sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). Because the district court could not have given a lower sentence under the terms of the statute, the sentence is not unreasonable.

In accordance with *Anders,*we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Cockrell’s conviction and sentence. This court requires counsel inform his client, in writing, of her 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*

*

 Although notified of her right to do so, Cockrell has not submitted a *pro se*supplemental brief.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Raymond Negron, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 758]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee A. White, J.), rendered on or about October 11, 2005, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833 [1976]). We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 460.20, defendant may apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that Court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that Court or to a Justice of the *396Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within 30 days after service of a copy of this order, with notice of entry.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the judge or justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other judge or justice. Concur— Andrias, J.E, Nardelli, Gonzalez, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)



In connection with the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q of Wells Real Estate Fund II-OW (the Registrant) for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned, Leo F. Wells, III, Chief Executive
Officer of the corporate General Partner of the Registrant, and Douglas P. Williams, Chief Financial Officer of the corporate General Partner of the Registrant, hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
1350), that, to the best of our 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 results of operations of the Registrant.
| | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                         
|---------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    LEO F. WELLS, III                                 
|Leo F. Wells, III Chief Executive
Officer August 11, 2004





|                                                           
|-----------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    DOUGLAS P. WILLIAMS                                 
|Douglas P. Williams Chief Financial
Officer August 11, 2004
97-824.

#### Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. LMI Ins. Co.

Richland App. No. 96-CA-32. On April 24,1997, appellant filed a notice of appeal from a judgment of the Richland County Court of Appeals purportedly entered in case No. 96-CA-32 on March 11,1997, and a memorandum in support of jurisdiction. Attached to appellant’s memorandum is a copy of the judgment entry being appealed, as required by S.Ct.Prac.R. III(1)(D). The judgment entry bears a stamp indicating that it was filed with the clerk of the court of appeals on March 7, 1997. Whereas the date the court of appeals filed its judgment entry for journalization with its clerk is, according to S.Ct.Prac.R. II(2)(A)(1), the date of entry of the judgment being appealed and, whereas appellant did not file its notice of appeal within forty-five days from the date of entry of the judgment being appealed,

IT IS ORDERED by the court, *sua sponte,*that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissed as untimely.
**Fire Management Administration	Checklist #02**

**Fire Management Administration 	Checklist #02**

**2-1		Revised 2008**

**2-1	Revised 2014**
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Each of
the undersigned hereby certifies, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his or her
capacity as an officer of ASI Technology Corporation (the "Company"), that, to
his or her knowledge, the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the
period ended September 30, 2009, fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.





Dated:
December 22, 2009





/s/ JERRY E. POLISJerry
      E. Polis, President and Principal Executive Officer of ASI Technology
      Corporation/s/ ERIC M. POLISEric
      M. Polis, Treasurer and Principal Financial Officer of ASI Technology
      Corporation

















(A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
ASI Technology Corporation and will be retained by ASI Technology Corporation
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.)
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Brian BROWN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-50196.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided June 20, 2006.

Joseph H Gay, Jr, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Allen R Stroder, Hirseh & Stroder, Odessa, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

*443Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

David Brian Brown appeals his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for attempting to manufacture methamphetamine within 1000 feet of a school. As part of his plea agreement, Brown signed a waiver provision wherein he specifically consented to be sentenced under the applicable United States Sentencing Guidelines. The Government seeks enforcement of that waiver.

“[A] defendant who agreed ‘to be sentenced pursuant to the applicable Sentencing Guidelines’ is not precluded from raising on appeal an alleged *Fanfan*error.” *United States v. Reyes-Celestino,*443 F.3d 451, 453 (5th Cir.2006). Accordingly, the waiver provision does not bar Brown’s appeal.

For the first time on appeal, Brown argues that the district court erred when it sentenced him pursuant to the mandatory Sentencing Guidelines held unconstitutional in *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). Application of the Sentencing Guidelines in their mandatory form constitutes error that is plain. *United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo,*407 F.3d 728, 733 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 267, 163 L.Ed.2d 240 (2005). However, nothing in the record indicates that the district court would have imposed a different sentence if it had known that it was not bound by the Sentencing Guidelines. Accordingly, the district court’s error did not affect Brown’s substantial rights. *See id.*at 733-34. Brown, therefore, has not established reversible plain error.

Brown also argues that the plea agreement should be invalidated because the Government breached the agreement by refusing to move for a downward departure pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1. Under the terms of the plea agreement, the Government had the “sole and exclusive” authority to determine whether Brown provided substantial assistance warranting the filing of a motion for downward departure. Accordingly, Brown’s contention that the Government breached the plea agreement by refusing to exercise its discretion is without merit. *See United States v. Aderholt,*87 F.3d 740, 742 (5th Cir.1996).

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3351 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3351

                For the relief of Marco Antonio Sanchez.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 12, 2010

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                For the relief of Marco Antonio Sanchez.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR MARCO ANTONIO SANCHEZ.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of section 
201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151), Marco 
Antonio Sanchez shall be eligible for an immigrant visa or for 
adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for 
permanent residence upon filing an application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa under section 204 of that Act (8 U.S.C. 1154) or for 
adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident.
    (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Marco Antonio Sanchez enters the 
United States before the filing deadline set forth in subsection (c), 
Marco Antonio Sanchez shall be considered to have entered and remained 
lawfully in the United States and shall be eligible for adjustment to 
lawful permanent resident status under section 245 of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) as of the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
    (c) Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) and (b) shall 
apply only if the application for issuance of an immigrant visa or the 
application for adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees not 
later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Numbers.--Upon the granting of an 
immigrant visa or lawful permanent resident status to Marco Antonio 
Sanchez, the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to 
reduce by one, during the current or next following fiscal year, the 
total number of immigrant visas that are made available to natives of 
the country of birth of Marco Antonio Sanchez under section 202(a)(2) 
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(a)(2)).
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 113 (Monday, June 15, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 28283]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-13891]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,886]


BG Labs, a Subsidiary of Standex, Binghamton, NY; Notice of 
Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on May 5, 2009 in response to a petition 
filed by a company official on behalf of workers of BG Labs, a 
subsidiary of Standex, Binghamton, New York.
    The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 11th day of May 2009.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-13891 Filed 6-12-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P