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

<ARTICLE>     5
<LEGEND>      THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL
              INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE REGISTRANT'S
              FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR ITS SECOND QUARTER
              YEAR-TO-DATE OF FISCAL YEAR 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED
              IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
              STATEMENTS
       
<CAPTION>
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                  Jun-30-1997
<CASH>                        101,134
<SECURITIES>                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                  63,694
<ALLOWANCES>                        0
<INVENTORY>                    13,765
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              181,956
<PP&E>                         16,059
<DEPRECIATION>                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                208,802
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>          69,784
<BONDS>                             0
<COMMON>                          150
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>               0
<PREFERRED>                         0
<OTHER-SE>                    109,772
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  208,802
<SALES>                        41,900
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              121,231
<CGS>                          22,763
<TOTAL-COSTS>                  78,598
<OTHER-EXPENSES>               20,714
<LOSS-PROVISION>                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 75
<INCOME-PRETAX>                21,844
<INCOME-TAX>                    2,550
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 0
<DISCONTINUED>                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                     0
<CHANGES>                           0
<NET-INCOME>                   19,294
<EPS-PRIMARY>                    1.42
<EPS-DILUTED>                    1.42
        

</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

The undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of section 1350 of
chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code, in his capacity as Chief Financial Officer of SRI/Surgical Express, Inc. (SRI), that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report of SRI on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008
(the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of SRI.



|                  |  |     |  |                                               
|----------------- |  | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------
|Date: May 5, 2008 |  | By: |  | /s/ Wallace D. Ruiz                           
|                  |  |     |  | Wallace D. Ruiz                               
|                  |  |     |  | Sr. Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
EX-35.6
(logo) WELLS FARGO

Corporate Trust Services

MAC R1204-010
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045

Tel: 410 884 2000
Fax: 410 715 2380


Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc.
c/o Wells Fargo Securities, LLC
375 Park Avenue 2nd floor
J0127-023
New York, New York 10152-023

RE: Annual Statement of Compliance for Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Trust
    2013-LC12, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2013-LC12

Per the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of July 1, 2013 (the
"Agreement"), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A., as Certificate Administrator ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows
as of and for the year ending December 31, 2013 (the "Reporting Period"):

(a) A review of Wells Fargo's activities during the Reporting Period and of its
performance under the Agreement has been made under such officer's supervision;
and

(b) To the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo
has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material
respects throughout the Reporting Period.


March 10, 2014


/s/ Brian Smith
BRIAN SMITH
Vice President


Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
#### Darnell Alonzo KEYES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Rena KAUFFMAN; Pearl Vision Center, Incorporated, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 07-7214.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 17, 2008.

Decided: Jan. 24, 2008.

Darnell Alonzo Keyes, Appellant Pro Se.

Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Darnell Alonzo Keyes appeals the district court’s order denying as untimely his motion for reconsideration of its order dismissing his breach of contract action against Defendants. We find that although the district court only considered the motion as one filed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e), it should have been construed instead as one filed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) because it was filed more than ten days after entry of judgment. *See*Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e), 60; *In re Burnley,*988 F.2d 1, 2-8 (4th Cir.1992). Because Keyes’ motion failed to demonstrate any grounds that would entitle him to relief pursuant to Rule 60(b), however, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the motion. *See Heyman v. M.L. Mktg. Co.,*116 F.3d 91, 94 (4th Cir.1997) (stating standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. *See Keyes v. Kauffman,*No. 1:07-cv-01149-JFM (D.Md. August 3, 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.*
#### Daniel S. MAYERS, Claimant-Appellant, v. Gordon H. MANSFIELD, Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 2007-7249.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Dec. 11, 2007.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of Daniel S. Mayers’ unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss his appeal,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion is granted.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 944 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 944

To amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to prohibit certain waivers and 
   exemptions from emergency preparedness and response and security 
                              regulations.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 15, 2015

 Mrs. Boxer (for herself, Mr. Sanders, and Mr. Markey) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                      Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to prohibit certain waivers and 
   exemptions from emergency preparedness and response and security 
                              regulations.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Safe and Secure Decommissioning Act 
of 2015''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN WAIVERS AND EXEMPTIONS.

    Chapter 19 of title I of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 
2015 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 276 the following:

``SEC. 277. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN WAIVERS AND EXEMPTIONS.

    ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
            ``(1) Covered regulation.--The term `covered regulation' 
        means--
                    ``(A) an emergency preparedness or response 
                regulation or requirement; or
                    ``(B) a security regulation or requirement 
                applicable to spent nuclear fuel.
            ``(2) Licensee.--The term `licensee' has the meaning given 
        the term in section 50.2 of title 10, Code of Federal 
        Regulations (or any successor regulation).
    ``(b) Prohibition of Certain Waivers and Exemptions.--Subject to 
subsection (c), the Commission shall not approve the request of a 
licensee for a waiver of, or exemption from, a covered regulation 
applicable to a civilian nuclear power reactor that has permanently 
ceased to operate.
    ``(c) Limitation.--Subsection (b) shall not apply to a civilian 
nuclear power reactor described in that subsection at which all spent 
nuclear fuel has been transferred to spent nuclear fuel dry casks.''.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 169 (Friday, September 1, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41613-41614]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18600]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XF659


North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) 
Electronic Monitoring Workgroup (EMWG) will hold a public meeting on 
September 18, 2017, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Pacific Time, AFSC, Traynor Room 
in Building 4, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Seattle, WA.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Tuesday, September 18, 2017, from 9 
a.m. to 5 p.m., Pacific Time.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in the FMA Observer Training Room 
1055 AFSC, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Seattle, WA. It will also be 
available by teleconference at (907) 271-2896.
    Council address: North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W. 
4th Ave., Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99501-2252; telephone: (907) 271-
2809.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Diana Evans, Council staff; telephone: 
(907) 271-2809.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Agenda

1. Update on 2017 pre-implementation program;
2. Discuss 2018 EM deployment and implementation, including budget;
3. Review EM component of draft Statement of Work for observer/EM 
contract;
4. Review draft methodology for allocating the observer fee between EM 
and observers;
5. Review NMFS draft EM policy directive;
6. Research and development report; and
7. Other business and scheduling. The Agenda is subject to change, and 
the latest version will be posted at http://www.npfmc.org/.

Special Accommodations

    These meetings are physically accessible to people with 
disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other 
auxiliary aids should be directed to Shannon Gleason at (907) 271-2809 
at least 7 working days prior to the meeting date.


[[Page 41614]]


    Dated: August 29, 2017.
Tracey L. Thompson,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National 
Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-18600 Filed 8-31-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 15


                     INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REVIEW REPORT


The Board of Directors and Shareholders
Collaborative Clinical Research, Inc.

We have reviewed the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet of
Collaborative Clinical Research, Inc. and subsidiaries (the "Company") as of
June 30, 1997, and the related condensed consolidated statements of operations
and cash flows for the three-month and the six-month periods ended June 30, 1997
and 1996. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's
management.

We conducted our reviews in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A review of interim
financial information consists principally of applying analytical review
procedures to financial data, and making inquiries of persons responsible for
financial and accounting matters. It is substantially less in scope than an
audit conducted in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, which
will be performed for the full year with the objective of expressing an opinion
regarding the financial statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not
express such an opinion.

Based on our reviews, we are not aware of any material modifications that should
be made to the condensed consolidated financial statements referred to above for
them to be in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.

We have previously audited, in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards, the consolidated balance sheet of Collaborative Clinical Research,
Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1996, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, shareholders' equity and cash flows for the year then
ended, not presented herein, and in our report dated February 13, 1997, we
expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements. In
our opinion, the information set forth in the accompanying condensed
consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 1996 is fairly stated, in all
material respects, in relation to the consolidated balance sheet from which it
has been derived.

Cleveland, Ohio                                     ERNST & YOUNG LLP
July 23, 1997
*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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-60709

 

JERENE CASH,

Petitioner,

versus

ARMY AIR FORCE EXCHANGE SERVICES (AAFES);

DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKER’S COMPENSATION PROGRAMS,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

Respondents.

 

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Benefits Review Board

(95-0571)

 

August 8, 1997

( )

Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

AFFIRMED. See Local Rule 47.6.
Exhibit 32.1


Certification of Chief Executive Officer


Pursuant to


Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)


In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2014 (the “Report”) of Fifth Street Senior Floating Rate Corp . (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Ivelin M. Dimitrov , the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:


(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/    Ivelin M. DimitrovName:    Ivelin M. DimitrovDate: December 9, 2014
#### Cain DIXON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Roger Werholtz, Secretary, Kansas Department of Corrections; David R. McKune, Warden, Lansing Correctional Facility; Elizabeth Rice, Classification Administrator, Lansing Correctional Facility, in their individual and official capacities, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 07-3274.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Feb. 1, 2008.

Cain Dixon, Lansing, KS, pro se.

Paul Morrison, Attorney General, Kansas Attorney General Office, Topeka, KS, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before KELLY, ANDERSON, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.*

*

 After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT **

PAUL J. KELLY, JR., Circuit Judge.

Cain Dixon, Jr., an inmate of the Lansing Correctional Facility (LCF) appeals the district court’s dismissal of his pro se civil rights complaint, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, *900against various corrections officials. *Dixon v. Kan. Dep’t of Corr.,*2007 WL 2461693 (D.Kan. August 28, 2007). He alleges that his constitutional rights were violated when, contrary to a work and housing classification issued in 1995 and acknowledged by the Warden in 1996, he was forced to move to a cell requiring him to climb stail's. Our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

Pursuant to its screening function, the district court ordered Mr. Dixon to show cause why his complaint should be dismissed as stating no claim for relief. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(l). After Mr. Dixon responded concerning only his Eighth Amendment claim, the district court dismissed the complaint. The district court held that Mr. Dixon could not show an Eighth Amendment violation of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs because no facts suggested that prison officials knew of a substantial risk of harm and disregarded it. *Farmer v. Brennan,*511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994). The district court relied upon an attachment to the complaint indicating that Mr. Dixon had been medically evaluated by a clinic prior to his move and that, after the clinic suggested a stair restriction, Mr. Dixon refused it and agreed to assume the consequences.

Giving Mr. Dixon’s complaint its mandated liberal construction and taking as true all well-pleaded facts, we have conducted our de novo review. *See McBride v. Deer,*240 F.3d 1287, 1289 (10th Cir.2001). The record supports the district court’s conclusion.

AFFIRMED. We DENY Mr. Dixon’s motion to proceed on appeal *in forma pauperis*and order immediate payment of any unpaid balance due.

**

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-70011

JEFFERY LEE WOOD

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF

CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas

5:01-CV-423

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

“In order to be entitled to a stay pending appeal under Rule 62 [Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure] or 8 [Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure], a petitioner

must show the likelihood of his prevailing on the merits on appeal, that he is

likely to suffer irreparable injury from the denial of the stay, that the other

parties will not be substantially harmed by the grant of stay, and that granting

the stay will serve the public interest.” Wildmon v. Berwick Universal Pictures,

983 F.2d 21, 23 (5th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

March 20, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
18 U.S.C. § 3599 states that: 

Upon a finding that investigative, expert, or other services are

reasonably necessary for the representation of the defendant,

whether in connection with issues relating to guilt or the sentence,

the court may authorize the defendant’s attorneys to obtain such

services on behalf of the defendant and, if so authorized, shall order

the payment of fees and expenses . . . . No ex parte proceeding,

communication, or request may be considered pursuant to this

section unless a proper showing is made concerning the need for

confidentiality. Any such proceeding, communication, or request

shall be transcribed and made a part of the record available for

appellate review.

(emphasis added). The petitioner presents no reasons for his need for

confidentiality in his appellate briefings. We also do not find any specific reasons

for confidentiality in the records below. The petitioner therefore cannot show a

likelihood of success on the merits. Moreover, the district court’s judgment

permitted the petitioner to file another motion requesting leave to file a proposed

sealed, ex parte motion for appointment of a second mental health expert. The

petitioner may file another motion, and therefore will suffer no irreparable

injury if the stay is denied. Finally, the respondent and the public interest are

not served by stopping all proceedings in the district court, because the

petitioner does not show that a stay of all proceedings before the district court,

even those unrelated to the interlocutory appeal, is necessary.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that petitioner’s motion to stay proceedings

in the district court pending appeal is DENIED.
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Homeland Security U.S. Customs and Border Protection
 AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
 ACTION: Notice of approval of Intertek USA, Inc., Baytown, TX, as a commercial gauger.
 SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that Intertek USA, Inc., Baytown, TX, has been approved to gauge petroleum and petroleum products for customs purposes for the next three years as of September 29, 2014.
 DATES: As of September 29, 2014, Intertek USA, Inc., Baytown, TX, was reapproved as a Customs-approved commercial gauger. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for September 2017.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Stephen Cassata, Laboratories and Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, tel. 202-344-1060.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.13, that Intertek USA, Inc., 2612 West Main St., Baytown, TX 77520, has been approved to gauge and accredited to test petroleum and petroleum products in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.13. Intertek USA, Inc., is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the American Petroleum Institute (API): API chapters
Title3
Gauging.7
Temperature Determination.8
Sampling.12
Calculation of Petroleum Quantities.17
Marine Measurements.
 Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific gauger service this entity is approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to 
                    *cbp.labhq@dhs.gov.*
                     Please reference the Web site listed below for a complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited laboratories: 
                    *http://www.cbp.gov/​about/​labs-scientific/​commercial-gaugers-and-laboratories.* Dated: August 31, 2017. Ira S. Reese, Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services.


[FR Doc. 2017-19264 Filed 9-11-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P