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

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          35,156
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 1,081
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         162,012
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           161,086
<LOANS>                                      1,556,617
<ALLOWANCE>                                     22,431
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,925,866
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,326,325
<SHORT-TERM>                                   340,608
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             30,144
<LONG-TERM>                                     97,295
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        51,071
<OTHER-SE>                                      68,776
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,925,866
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 31,330
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                4,735
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   132
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                36,198
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              15,700
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              22,369
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           13,828
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  25
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 10,130
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,504
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       7,504
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,621
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.97
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.97
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.91
<LOANS-NON>                                      7,028
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 3,179
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 13,221
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                22,750
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      387
<RECOVERIES>                                        68
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               22,431
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            22,431
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                         21,076
        

</TABLE>
## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 17

- 00144

- CR

JAMES WILLIAM UTZMAN, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 124th District Court Gregg County, Texas Trial Court No. 46,051

- B

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.2 

### O R D E R
Our review of the reporter’s record in this case indicates that it contains “sensitive data” as that phrase is defined in Rule 9.10 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 9.10(a). Sensitive data includes “a driver’s license number, pa ssport number, social security number, tax identification number or similar government

- issued personal identification number.”
T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 9.10(a)(1). Volume five of the reporter’s record includes a social security number. Rule 9.10(b) states, “Unle ss a court orders otherwise, an electronic or paper filing with the court, including the contents of any appendices, must not contain sensitive data.” T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 9.10(b). Rule 9.10(g) provides, “A court may also order that a document be filed under seal in paper form or electronic form, without redaction.” T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 9.10(g). Therefore, because volume five of the reporter’s record contains sensitive data, we order the clerk of this Court or her appointee, in accordance with Rule 9.10(g), to se al volume five of the electronically filed reporter’s
record in this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT

Date: November 21, 2017
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) / Rule 15d-14(a),
promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Encysive Pharmaceuticals Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the




---



##### 



audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
    /s/ Bruce D. Given, M.D.Bruce D. Given, M.D.President and Chief Executive Officer
 2
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 24-1160

___________________________ 

United States of America

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Darron Van Hill

 Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Central 

____________ 

Submitted: May 22, 2024

Filed: May 28, 2024

[Unpublished] 

____________

Before GRUENDER, ERICKSON, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

After violating the conditions of supervised release for the second time, 

Darron Hill received a 12-month prison sentence. His counsel, who seeks 

permission to withdraw, suggests the sentence is substantively unreasonable.
-2- 

We conclude otherwise. See United States v. Dixon, 52 F.4th 731, 733 (8th 

Cir. 2022) (reviewing a revocation sentence for an abuse of discretion). The record 

shows that the district court1 sufficiently considered the statutory sentencing factors, 

18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(e)(3), and did not rely on an improper factor or commit 

a clear error of judgment. See United States v. Timberlake, 679 F.3d 1008, 1012 

(8th Cir. 2012) (explaining that the district court has “substantial latitude to 

determine how much weight to give the various factors” (citation omitted)). We 

accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court and grant counsel permission 

to withdraw.

______________________________

1

The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge, United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa.
Filed 10/23/12 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2012 ND 211

Ryan R. Corman, Petitioner and Appellant

v.

State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee

No. 20120309

Appeal from the District Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast Central Judicial District, the Honorable Sonja Clapp, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Benjamin C. Pulkrabek (on brief), 402 1st Street Northwest, Mandan, N.D. 58554-3118, for petitioner and appellant.

Peter D. Welte (on brief), Assistant State’s Attorney, Erich M. Grant (on brief), third-year law student, under the Rule on Limited Practice of Law by Law Students, P.O. Box 5607, Grand Forks, N.D. 58206-5607, for respondent and appellee.

Corman v. State

No. 20120309

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Ryan Corman appeals from an order summarily dismissing his application for post-conviction relief.  In 2011, Corman was convicted after entering a guilty plea for failure to register as a sexual offender in violation of N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-15, a class C felony.  Corman argues the district court erred in summarily dismissing his application for post-conviction relief and he should have been allowed to proceed with his application and have a hearing in the district court.  We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(6).

[¶2]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Daniel J. Crothers

Mary Muehlen Maring

Carol Ronning Kapsner

Dale V. Sandstrom
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                  DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          5,534,000
<SECURITIES>                                   17,947,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                   1,061,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               25,491,000
<PP&E>                                        184,831,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                108,293,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                102,029,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                   0
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                       10,014,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     18,723,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  102,029,000
<SALES>                                         5,917,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               15,647,000
<CGS>                                           2,274,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  13,588,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              3,331,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 8,786,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                    3,250,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             5,536,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                    5,536,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         .58
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         .58



</TABLE>
exv10w94





Exhibit 10.94









September 9, 2011




Mr. Michael Golden

Smith & Wesson Holding

2100 Roosevelt Avenue

Springfield, MA 01104





Re: Letter of Amendment



Dear Mr. Golden:



We are parties to a Severance and Change in Control Agreement dated as of March 9, 2011 (the
“Agreement”). This will confirm the amendment to the Agreement to delete Clause (a) of Section 3
of the Agreement effective on the execution of this Letter of Amendment. Except for this change,
the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Sincerely,



Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Jeffrey D. Buchanan
 	 




Agreed and Accepted:



	 	 	 
	/s/ Michael F.  Golden
 

Michael Golden

	 	 






2100 Roosevelt Avenue • PO Box 2208 • Springfield, MA 01102-2208 • 1-800-331-0852 • www.smith-wesson.com
#### Leroy A. ANDREOZZI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 06-15888.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 3, 2007.*

Filed Dec. 28, 2007.

Leroy A. Andreozzi, CMF-California Medical Facility, Vacaville, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

*772Tracy S. Hendrickson, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Leroy A. Andreozzi, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the California Department of Corrections (CDC) and several CDC employees in his civil rights action for injunctive relief alleging that CDC regulations requiring inmates to maintain short hair violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *see Southern Oregon Barter Fair v. Jackson County, Oregon,*372 F.3d 1128, 1133 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly determined that Andreozzi’s action for injunctive relief was moot because CDC’s modified grooming regulations, effective January 2006, permit inmates to wear their hair any length, and, given these modified regulations, there is no reasonable expectation that prison officials will discipline Andreozzi in the future for wearing his hair long in accordance with his religious beliefs. *See, e.g., White v. Lee,*227 F.3d 1214, 1243 (9th Cir.2000); *Warsoldier v. Woodford,*418 F.3d 989 (9th Cir.2005).

Andreozzi’s remaining contentions are not persuasive.

AFFIRMED.

**

**This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 159 (Friday, August 18, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 39421]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17478]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER17-2282-000]


Champion Solar, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding 
Champion Solar, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with 
an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a 
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future 
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, 
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone 
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is August 31, 2017.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the 
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an 
eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive 
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). 
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a6e0e3f4e5e9c8cacfc8c3f5d3d6d6c9d4d2e6c0c3d4c588c1c9d0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d3959681909cbdbfbabdb680a6a3a3bca1a793b5b6a1b0fdb4bca5">[email protected]</span></a> or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, 
call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: August 11, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-17478 Filed 8-17-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6899
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DAVID PATRICK WORRELL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (4:03-cr-00049-H) Submitted: October 11, 2007 Decided: October 17, 2007 Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Patrick Worrell, Appellant Pro Se. Steve R. Matheny, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: David Patrick Worrell appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a writ of audita querela pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Worrell , No. 4:03-cr-00049-H (E.D.N.C. May 29, 2007). 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
Protective service workers

This occupational group includes workers engaged in firefighting and fire 

prevention, law enforcement, and animal control, as well as private 

detectives and investigators, security guards, lifeguards, transportation 

security screeners, and crossing guards.

Cognitive and mental requirements

The qualifications that workers need to use judgment, make decisions, 

interact with others, and adapt to changes in jobs.

In 2023, more than basic people skills were required for 79.0 percent of 

protective service workers, and basic people skills were required for 21.0 percent.

Table 1. Percentage of protective service workers with cognitive and mental 

requirements, 2023

Requirement Yes No

Pace: Pause control 13.2 86.8

Interaction with general public 98.8 1.2

Working around crowds 40.6 59.4

Telework <0.5 >99.5

Work review: Supervising others 12.5 87.5

Work review: Presence of supervisor 34.9 65.1

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Requirements Survey

Education, training, and experience requirements

The minimum level of formal 

education required, 

credentials necessary, on-thejob training, and prior work 

experience necessary for 

average performance in jobs.

In 2023, credentials were 

required for 89.4 percent of 

protective service workers. 

Prior work experience was 

required for 30.4 percent and 

on-the-job training was 

required for 75.9 percent.

A high school diploma was 

required for 82.3 percent of 

protective service workers.
Occupational Requirements Survey ●www.bls.gov/ors ●orsinfo@bls.gov ●202.691.6199

Environmental conditions

The various tangible or concrete 

hazards or difficulties that are in the 

vicinity of where jobs’ critical tasks are 

performed.

In 2023, a quiet noise exposure was 

present for 3.6 percent of protective 

service workers. Another 82.2 percent 

were exposed to moderate noise, 13.2 

percent were exposed to loud noise, 

and 1.1 percent to very loud noise. 

Personal protective equipment (PPE)

was used by 9.3 percent of workers to 

mitigate noise exposure, and was not 

used by 90.7 percent.

Physical demands

Refer to the physical activities required to 

perform tasks in jobs. The presence and, in 

some cases, duration of these activities are 

published.

In 2023, reaching at or below the shoulder 

was required for 85.5 percent of protective 

service workers and was not required for 

14.5 percent.

Performing work in low postures was 

required for 73.4 percent of protective 

service workers and was not required for 

26.6 percent. For 33.7 percent of workers, 

stooping was required to perform low work.

The choice to sit or stand when performing 

critical tasks was available to 9.2 percent of 

protective service workers. On average, workers spent 43.2 percent of the workday sitting and 56.8 percent of the 

workday standing.

Table 2. Percentage of protective service workers with physical demands, 2023

Requirement Yes No

Choice of sitting or standing 9.2 90.8

Driving 56.8 43.2

Climbing structure-related ramps or stairs 70.7 29.3

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Requirements Survey
Exhibit 35.3

OFFICERS CERTIFICATE

I, Karen Montbach, a
Managing Director of Citibank, N.A. (the Company), hereby certify, with respect to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of April 1, 2013 (the Agreement), by and among Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Securities
Inc., as depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as master servicer, LNR Partners, LLC, as special servicer, Pentalpha Surveillance LLC, as operating advisor, Citibank, N.A., as certificate administrator (the Certificate
Administrator), and U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee, the following:

1. A review of the Companys activities as Certificate
Administrator during the reporting period ending December 31, 2013 and its performance under the Agreement has been made under my supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, as of and for the reporting period ending December 31, 2013, the Company has
fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the reporting period.

This statement is given by the undersigned
as an authorized officer of the Company and not in the undersigneds individual capacity.

Date: February 28, 2014



Citibank, N.A.By:

/s/ Karen MontbachName: Karen MontbachTitle:   Managing Director
EXHIBIT 21.1

NATIONAL TECHNICAL SYSTEMS, INC.    LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES

NTS, TECHNICAL SYSTEMS, A CALIFORNIA CORP.
(FORMERLY NATIONAL TECHNICAL SYSTEMS, A CALIFORNIA CORP.)

ACTON ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING CORPORATION, A MASSACHUSETTS CORP.

APPROVED ENGINEERING TESTING LABORATORIES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORP.

ETCR INC., A CALIFORNIA CORP.

XXCAL, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORP.

NATIONAL QUALITY ASSURANCE, INC., A MASSACHUSETTS CORP. (50% OWNED)

NTS EUROPE, GMBH

AETL TESTING, INC. DBA NTS CALGARY

PHASE SEVEN LABORATORIES, A CALIFORNIA CORP.

UNITED STATES TEST LABORATORY, LLC.

---



QuickLinks