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

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       7,472,139
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                            10,256,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 12,806,575
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      19,014,829
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        20,576,000
<LOANS>                                    206,898,506
<ALLOWANCE>                                  2,999,524
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             262,433,946
<DEPOSITS>                                 192,926,045
<SHORT-TERM>                                38,532,102
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          2,086,084
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    10,336,295
<OTHER-SE>                                  18,553,420
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             262,433,946
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              8,927,935
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            1,289,802
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            10,217,448
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           4,246,260
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           5,292,635
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        4,924,813
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  165,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              3,200,904
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,020,127
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   2,020,127
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,451,598
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    26.46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    26.46
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.18
<LOANS-NON>                                  4,339,695
<LOANS-PAST>                                     8,060
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               300,706
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             2,825,921
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   11,357
<RECOVERIES>                                    19,960
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            2,999,524
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                      2,999,524
        

</TABLE>
NOTE: Data refer to extended mass layoffs (private sector nonfarm employers indicated that 50 or more workers were separated 

from their jobs for at least 31 days) in which the employer reports that work was relocated. These movements of work were to other 

U.S. locations or to locations outside of the U.S., and they occurred either within the same company or to other companies.

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Chart 1-14. In 2006, nearly forty percent of workers 

separated from their jobs due to the relocation of work were 

separated due to out-of-country relocations 

Separations due to out-ofcountry relocations

(39.3 percent)

2006

Separations due to 

domestic relocations

(60.7 percent)

Total = 34,036 workers

Chart 1-14. In 2006, nearly forty percent of workers 

separated from their jobs due to the relocation of work were 

separated due to out-of-country relocations

• Of the 34,036 workers separated from their jobs in 2006 due to the relocation 

of work, the separation of about forty percent (13,367 workers) was associated 

with the movement of work outside of the country. Domestic relocation—both 

within the company and to other companies—affected 20,669 workers.

• Extended mass layoffs and separations associated with the movement of work, 

domestically or overseas, reflect job loss where at least 50 people filed for 

unemployment insurance during a 5-week period and the layoff lasted more 

than 30 days. The extended mass layoff statistics and movement of work 

measures, therefore, do not reflect layoffs of fewer than 50 workers at these 

companies, nor does the program capture layoffs occurring at establishments 

with fewer than 50 workers. Moreover, these data do not cover situations in 

which firms initiate or transfer work to new locations when there are no layoffs 

involved.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Clarence H. MARSHALL, Defendant.

Crim. A. No. 16-60.

United States District Court District of Columbia.

Jan. 22, 1960.

Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., and John W. Warner, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., on behalf of the Government.

D. F. Gochran, of Washington, D. *C.,*for defendant.

HOLTZOFF, District Judge.

This is a motion by the defendant prior to trial to suppress statements made by the defendant to police officers subsequently to his arrest. The invariable practice in this District is to follow the prevailing procedure of not entertaining such motions, but to leave objections to the admissibility of a statement made by the defendant to be determined at the trial.1 The situation is entirely different from that presented by motions to suppress tangible evidence obtained by an unlawful search and seizure. Such motions are expressly provided for by Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A., which represents an exception to the general doctrine that matters to be determined in connection with the merits of a case should not be decided piecemeal, but at the trial.

The Court is going to follow the prevailing practice and the practice that has invariably been pursued in this District and deny the motion without prejudice to the objection being raised at the trial if and when these statements are offered in evidence.

Motion denied.

1

. Centracchio v. Garrity, 1 Cir., 198 F.2d 382, 387; Biggs v. United States, 6 Cir., 246 F.2d 40, 43; United States v. Tuzzo, D.C.N.J., 9 F.R.D. 466; The opposite has been held in the Second Circuit with, however, a strong dissenting opinion, In re Fried, 161 F.2d 453, 1 A.L.R.2d 996.
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Stillwater Lakes Civic Association, Inc. :

and Stillwater Sewer Corporation :

:

v. : No. 998 C.D. 2018

:

George Kuzni, :

Appellant :

PER CURIAM O R D E R

NOW, March 31, 2020

, having considered appellees ’ application for

reargument

, the application is denied.
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 Annual Report of Soyo Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-K/A2 for the period ended  December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  the  undersigned,  Ming
Tung Chok,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the Company  certifies,  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  13a-14(b) or
15d-14(b) 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.


 /s/ Ming Tung Chok
-----------------------
Ming Tung Chok
Chief Executive Officer
March 18, 2008
##### 



HOMELAND ENERGY SOLUTIONS, LLC
NEW HAMPTON PROJECT  PROJECT DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE
SCOPE OF WORK
 1.0 INTRODUCTION
  2.0 SCOPE OF WORK
  Task 1  Trip to China
  Task 2  Development of Front End Loaded (FEL II) Detailed Cost and Preliminary Design Engineering
  
    
    Overall Site Plan
    
    Coal Handling System
    
    Rail Loop / Spur
    
    Preliminary Balance of Plant Piping and Instrumentation Diagrams including:
Cooling Water System, Plant Air System, Steam System, Fire Protection System,
Sulfur Loadout, Water Treatment, Natural Gas Interconnection
    
    One Line Diagrams for BOP Systems
    
    Preliminary Building Layouts




---



##### 




    
    Process Flow Diagram
    
    Design Basis Description
    
    Material Balances (design case and guarantee case)
    
    Piping and Instrumental Diagrams
    
    Electrical Single Line Diagrams
    
    General Arrangement Drawings
    
    Equipment Data Sheets
    
    Equipment List
    
    FEL II level Estimates or Gasifier Engineering, Equipment, and Materials and Construction
    
    Gasifier General Arrangements
    
    Operating Data
    
    Bar Chart Construction Schedule
 Task 3  Refinement of Coal Supply and Transportation
Options
    Coal Supply




---



##### 



Coal Transportation
     Task 4  Development of Plant Performance Guarantees
  
    
    Fuel Gas Production Output
    
    Fuel Gas Heating Value
    
    Sulfur Quantity
    
    Fuel Gas H2X
    
    Energy Consumption
    
    Delivery Pressure
    
    Mercury Level
    
    Conversion Efficiency




---



##### 




    
    Availability
    
    Utility Requirements
 Task 5  Letter of Intent for Project Development
  3.0 PRICING AND PAYMENT TERMS
  Task 1: China Trip
    
    $7,200 / personTask 2: Development of Front End Loaded (FEL II) Detailed
    
    $
    413,000Cost and Preliminary Design EngineeringTask 3: Refinement of Coal Transportation and Supply
    
    $
    48,750OptionsTask 4: Development of Plant Performance Guarantees
    
    Included withTask 2Task 5: Letter of Intent for Project Development
    
    To Be DeterminedTOTAL (w/o China Trip)
    
    $
    461,750




---



##### 



4.0 SCHEDULE
   SUBMITTED:
 Burns & McDonnell
    
    
    
    Date: October 31, 2006/s/ Jeffrey GreigBy: Jeffrey GreigTitle: General Manager, Business & Technology ServicesACCEPTED:Homeland Energy Solutions, LLC
    
    
    
    Date:January 8, 2007/s/ Stephen K. EastmanBy: Stephen K. EastmanTitle: PresidentHomeland Energy Solutions, LLC
    
    
    
    Date: January 8, 2007/s/ James BoedingBy: James BoedingTitle: Vice President
Exhibit
32.2




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350




In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Nyer Medical Group, Inc. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Sandra M. Zimmerman, Chief
Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) of the Company, hereby certify
as of the date hereof, solely for the purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section
1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:




(1)           The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, 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 at the dates
and for the periods indicated.




/s/
      Sandra M. ZimmermanName:
              Sandra
      M. ZimmermanTitle:
              Chief
      Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial Officer)




November
16, 2009
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE REGISTRANT'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-QSB FOR THE
QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO 
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       6,677,133
<SECURITIES>                                 1,197,343
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,993,125
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,103,490
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,441,470
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           554
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,661,466
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,103,490
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,144,799
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               15,661,971
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             165,851
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (12,517,172)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (12,517,172)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.24)
        

</TABLE>
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 Infinite Group Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael
S. Smith, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 results of operations of the
Company.

      A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its
staff upon request.



/s/  MICHAEL S. SMITH
---------------------------------------
    Michael S. Smith
    Chief Executive Officer and
    Chief Financial Officer

July 26, 2005
**Exhibit 32.2**

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

In connection with the Annual Report of WJCommunications, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period endingDecember 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, Ephraim Kwok, Principal Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

(1)   The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

A signed original of thiswritten certification required by Section 1350 has been provided to the Companyand will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.
| /s/ EPHRAIM KWOK                |   |
|---------------------------------|--------|
| Ephraim Kwok                    |
| *Chief Financial Officer*       |
| *(principal financial officer)* |
| March 30, 2005                  |

 

----
EX-10.53.4



 Exhibit 10.53.4 

 

			
	



	 	

 Reference is made to that certain amended and restated mortgage warehouse agreement dated as of November
1, 2012 (as amended, the “Warehouse Agreement”), between Texas Capital Bank, National Association, as bank (“Bank”) and Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc., as seller (“Seller”). Capitalized terms used herein but not
defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to such terms in the Warehouse Agreement. 
 The Seller hereby requests that the
Bank waive, and the Bank does hereby waive from and after November 1, 2012 until and including March 8, 2013, compliance by the Seller with the following financial covenants: 

 

	 	•	 	 Section 1(a) of the Additional Warehouse Facility Covenants Addendum attached as Exhibit F to the Warehouse Agreement (Minimum Tangible Net Worth)



  

	 	•	 	 Section 1(c) of the Additional Warehouse Facility Covenants Addendum attached as Exhibit F to the Warehouse Agreement (Maximum Leverage Ratio)



 Sincerely, 
  

			
	Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc.
		
	By:	 	 
	Name:	 	 
	Title:	 	 

 Acknowledged and Agreed: 
  

			
	Texas Capital Bank, National Association
		
	By:	 	 
	Name:	 	 
	Title:	 	 

  

					
		 	 Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc.

2727 Spring Creek Drive—Spring, TX 77373
 NMLS ID #107636
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 02-4615

ERIC SEDELL TAYLOR,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.

James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge.

(CR-01-398, CR-01-399)

Submitted: January 30, 2003

Decided: February 6, 2003

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr.,

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, L. Patrick

Auld, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina,

for Appellee. 
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Eric Taylor appeals the sentence imposed by the district court following his guilty plea to multiple counts of bank robbery, in violation

of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) (2000). Taylor’s counsel has filed a brief in

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel

states there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but contends on Taylor’s behalf that his sentence violates Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530

U.S. 466 (2000). Taylor has filed a pro se supplemental brief in which

he challenges the district court’s sentencing guidelines calculation.

Taylor also argues that his sentence violates Apprendi. Finding no

error, we affirm. 

Taylor first objects to a three-level increase in his offense level,

pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2B3.1(b)(2)(E)

(2000), for brandishing a firearm. Taylor contends the enhancement

violates Apprendi because brandishing was not alleged in the indictment. This argument is without merit. Taylor’s sentence was well

within the statutory twenty-year maximum, and is unaffected by

Apprendi. See United States v. Kinter, 235 F.3d 192, 201-02 (4th Cir.

2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 937 (2001). 

Taylor next objects to the district court’s consideration of dismissed conduct in determining his sentencing range. This court has

repeatedly upheld such consideration of dismissed conduct. See, e.g.,

United States v. Barber, 119 F.3d 276, 284 (4th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, we find the enhancement was proper. 

Pursuant to Anders, this court has reviewed the record for reversible error and found none. We therefore affirm Taylor’s 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, then counsel may

2 UNITED STATES v. TAYLOR
move 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

UNITED STATES v. TAYLOR 3
MPG 2012 12.31 10K EX 10.10


Exhibit 10.10


FIRST AMENDMENT TO
EMPLOYMENT TERMS




THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT TERMS (this “First Amendment”), is entered into as of November 28, 2012, by and between MPG Office Trust, Inc., a Maryland corporation, MPG Office, L.P., a Maryland limited partnership (collectively, the “Company”), and Jeanne M. Lazar (the “Employee”).  Capitalized terms used and not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Employment Letter (as defined below).


WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee have entered into that certain Employment Terms, effective as of February 15, 2012 (the “Employment Letter”);


WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee mutually desire to amend the Employment Letter as set forth in this First Amendment.


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises set forth herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, the Company and the Employee hereby amend the Employment Letter as follows, effective as of the date first above written:


1.    The first sentence of Section 1 of the Employment Letter is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows:


“Subject to the provisions for earlier termination provided in this letter, your employment shall be for a term (the “Employment Period”) commencing on the Effective Date and ending on December 31, 2013 (the “Expiration Date”).”


2.    This First Amendment shall be and is hereby incorporated in and forms a part of the Employment Letter.


3.    All other terms and provisions of the Employment Letter shall remain unchanged except as specifically modified herein.




[Signature Page Follows]











IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this First Amendment has been executed and delivered by the parties hereto.
	
				
	 
	MPG OFFICE TRUST, INC.,
a Maryland corporation

	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	 
	By:
	/s/ CHRISTOPHER M. NORTON

	 
	 
	Name:
	Christopher M. Norton

	 
	 
	Title:
	Executive Vice President,
General Counsel and Secretary

	 
	 
	

	


	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	MPG OFFICE, L.P.,
a Maryland limited partnership

	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	By:   MPG Office Trust, Inc.

	 
	Its:   General Partner

	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	By:
	/s/ CHRISTOPHER M. NORTON

	 
	 
	Name:
	Christopher M. Norton

	 
	 
	Title:
	Executive Vice President,
General Counsel and Secretary

	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	EMPLOYEE

	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	 
	By:
	/s/ JEANNE M. LAZAR

	 
	 
	Name:
	Jeanne M. Lazar