alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.2
 
 Certification of
 Chief Financial Officer of
 Gold Banc Corporation, Inc.
 
 I, Rick J. Tremblay, Chief Financial Officer of Gold Banc Corporation, Inc., hereby certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 (a)
The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2003, which accompanies this certification, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(b)
The information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2003, which accompanies this certification, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Gold Banc Corporation, Inc. 
 
 ****Dated: November 14, 2003.
By:
/s/ Rick J. TremblayRick TremblayChief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-27-1997
<CASH>                                             206
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,310
<ALLOWANCES>                                       593
<INVENTORY>                                     16,461
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                32,044
<PP&E>                                          23,820
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,538
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  93,798
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,423
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            73
<OTHER-SE>                                      84,302
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    93,798
<SALES>                                         55,657
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                55,657
<CGS>                                           22,141
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   22,141
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   193
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 121
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,296
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,513
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,783
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,783
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.50
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.50
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           7,183
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     10,567
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                17,750
<PP&E>                                          10,565
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,766)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  34,815
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           34,453
<BONDS>                                         10,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        18,344
<OTHER-SE>                                    (32,357)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    34,815
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                68,417
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,089
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (69,506)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (69,506)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 445 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. RASHAUN SCOTT, a/k/a Shaun , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Columbia

. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District Judge. ( 3:05

- cr - 00651

- MBS

- 3)

Submitted : January 30, 2018 Decided: February 1, 2018

Before MOTZ and KEENAN , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Leslie T. Sarji, SARJI LAW FIRM, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. John C. Potterfield, Assistant United States Attorney , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATE S ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Rashaun Scott appeals from the revocation of his supervised release and the resulting 24

- month sentence. Scott’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious issues, but noting that Scott objected below to the classification of four of his supervised release violations, all for possession and use of mar ijuana, as Grade B violations. The Government declined to file a brief, and Scott did not file a pro se supplemental brief. Finding no error, we affirm. At the revocation hearing, Scott admitted the use/possession violations alleged in the petition, but argued that the violations should be classified as Grade C violations instead of Grade B violations. However, given Scott’s prior conviction for distribution of cocaine, his possession and use of marijuana would carry a sentence of up to two years, if
pro secuted under 21 U.S.C. § 844(a) (2012). Thus, the violation s were properly considered to be Grade B violation s . See United States v. Wynn , 786 F.3d 339, 342

- 44 (4th Cir. 2015); U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.1(a) , p.s. (2016). In accordance wit h Anders , we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the revocation of
Scott’s supervised release and his sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Scott, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Scott 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 on3 Scott. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1
 
                              LEGATO SYSTEMS, INC.
 
                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT
 
Legato Systems Pty. Ltd.--Australia
 
Legato Systems International, Inc.--Barbados
 
Legato Systems s.a./n.v.--Belgium
 
Legato Systems (Canada), Inc.--Canada
 
LGTO S.A.R.L.--France
 
Legato Systems Deutschland GmbH--Germany
 
Legato Systems KK--Japan
 
Legato Systems--Netherlands
 
Legato Systems Inc.--Poland
 
Legato Systems AB--Sweden
 
Legato Systems Schweiz GmbH--Switzerland
 
Legato Systems UK Ltd.--United Kingdom
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3052 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3052

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the exception to 
the treatment of consolidated groups under the personal holding company 
                                 rules.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 23, 2011

 Mr. Larsen of Washington (for himself, Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, and Mr. 
   Hastings of Washington) introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the exception to 
the treatment of consolidated groups under the personal holding company 
                                 rules.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF EXCEPTION TO TREATMENT AS CONSOLIDATED GROUP UNDER 
              PERSONAL HOLDING COMPANY RULES.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (b) of section 542 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
            (1) by striking paragraphs (2) and (4), and
            (2) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (5) as paragraphs 
        (2) and (3), respectively.
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--
            (1) Paragraph (1) of section 542(b) of such Code is amended 
        by striking ``paragraphs (2) and (3)'' and inserting 
        ``paragraph (2)''.
            (2) Clause (ii) of section 1504(c)(2)(B) of such Code is 
        amended by striking ``section 542(b)(5)'' and inserting 
        ``section 542(b)(3)''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning on or after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 11.1

CALCULATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE



|                  |  |            |  | 
|----------------- |  | ---------- |  | 
|BEGINNING BALANCE |  | 30,432,433



|                   |  |                      |  |                                  |  |               
|------------------ |  | -------------------- |  | -------------------------------- |  | --------------
|DATE               |  | NO. OF SHARES ISSUED |  | CONTRIBUTION TO WEIGHTED AVERAGE |  | ENDING BALANCE
|January 16, 2007   |  | 1,925,000            |  | 1,812,180                        |  | 32244,613     
|February 5, 2007   |  | 600,000              |  | 520,879                          |  | 32,765,492    
|February 21, 2007  |  | 275,000              |  | 222,619                          |  | 32,988,111    
|March 22, 2007     |  | 365,000              |  | 256,703                          |  | 33,244,814    
|June 18, 2007      |  | 1,304,286            |  | 496,871                          |  | 33,741,685    
|July 9, 2007       |  | 53,616               |  | 16,301                           |  | 33,757,986    
|July 12, 2007      |  | 120,000              |  | 35,165                           |  | 33,793,151    
|August 8, 2007     |  | 1,625,000            |  | 315,476                          |  | 34,108,627    
|September 20, 2007 |  | 17,000               |  | 623                              |  | 34,109,250    



|                        |  |   |            |  
|----------------------- |  | - | ---------- | -
|Loss for the period     |  | $ | 1,985,811  |  
|Weighted average shares |  |   | 34,109,250 |  
|Net Loss per share      |  | $ | (0.06      | )
<PAGE>

                                                                EXHIBIT 13.2


                             INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT


To the Board of Directors and Shareholders
  of Thomas-Davis Medical Centers, P.C.
Tucson, Arizona

We have audited the consolidated statements of operations, cash flows, and
changes in shareholders' equity of Thomas-Davis Medical Centers, P.C. and
Subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 1993.  These financial statements
are the responsibility of the Company's management.  Our responsibility is to
express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit.  We did not
audit the financial statements of Intergroup Healthcare Corporation, a 62.6%
owned subsidiary, which statements reflect total revenues of $392,036,000 for
the year ended December 31, 1993.  Those statements were audited by other
auditors whose report has been furnished to us, and our opinion, insofar as it
relates to the amounts included for Intergroup Healthcare Corporation, is based
solely on the report of the other auditors.

We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable
assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material
misstatement.  An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting
the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements.  An audit also includes
assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.
We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, based on our audit and the report of other auditors, the
consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all
material respects, the results of the operations and cash flow of Thomas-Davis
Medical Centers, P.C. and Subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 1993, in
conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.


STEVENSON, JONES & HOLMASS, P.C.

Tucson, Arizona
April 27, 1994


                                      61
<PAGE>


                                                                EXHIBIT 23.1

                            INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in: (1) Registration Statement
on Form S-8 (No. 33-36847) relating to the Foundation Health Corporation Profit
Sharing and 401(k) Plan, (2) Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 33-36850)
relating to the Foundation Health Corporation 1990 Stock Option Plan,
(3) Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 33-36849) relating to the Foundation
Health Corporation Employee Stock Purchase Plan, (4) Registration Statement on
Form S-8 (No. 33-44783) relating to the Non-Qualified Stock Option Plan of
Foundation Health Corporation, (5) Registration Statement on Form S-8
(No. 33-48561) relating to the 1992 Nonstatutory Stock Option Plan of Foundation
Health Corporation and the Foundation Health Corporation Incentive Common Stock
Option Agreement, (6) Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 33-53468) relating
to the Century MediCorp 1983 Incentive Stock Option Plan and Century MediCorp
1985, 1988, 1989 and 1991 nonstatutory stock option plans, (7) Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (No. 33-67062) relating to the 1989 Stock Plan of Business
Insurance Corporation, (8) Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 33-80512)
relating to the 1993 Nonstatutory Stock Option Plan of Foundation Health
Corporation, (9) Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 33-86568) relating to
the Intergroup Healthcare Corporation Stock Option and Incentive Plan and Stock
Option Agreement, and (10) Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 33-86566)
relating to the Foundation Health Corporation 1990 Stock Option Plan (as amended
and restated), of our report dated July 25, 1996 and November 18, 1996, as to 
Notes 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 14 appearing in this Amended Annual 
Report on Form 10-K/A of Foundation Health Corporation for the year ended 
June 30, 1996.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Sacramento, California
November 18, 1996


                                      63
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

 

JASON P. REED, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-3178 

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

) 

Opinion filed May 18, 2018. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas

County; Michael F. Andrews, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, 

and Megan Olson, Assistant Public 

Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General,

Tallahassee, for Appellee. 

 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

VILLANTI, CRENSHAW, and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
V 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3153 

For the relief of Patricia Macarelli, in her capacity as administratrix of 

the estate of Edward Brian Halloran. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 11, 2011 

Mr. KEATING introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

For the relief of Patricia Macarelli, in her capacity as 

administratrix of the estate of Edward Brian Halloran. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. COMPENSATION OF PATRICIA MACARELLI. 

4 (a) PAYMENT.—The Secretary of the Treasury shall 

5 pay, out of funds not otherwise appropriated, the amount 

6 of $2,061,000.00, the judgment entered by the United 

7 States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on 

8 May 6, 2009, plus interest as provided by section 1304 

9 of title 31, United States Code, to compensate Patricia 

10 Macarelli, in her capacity as administratrix of the estate 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3153 IH

1 of Edward Brian Halloran, for costs related to and dam2 ages arising from the murder of Edward Brian Halloran 

3 in Massachusetts in May 1982 as described in Claim No. 

4 01–11346–WGY, filed in the United States District Court 

5 for the District of Massachusetts and Claim No. 09– 

6 1951;09–1952 filed in the United States Court of Appeals 

7 for the First Circuit. 

8 (b) SATISFACTION OF CLAIMS.—The payment under 

9 subsection (a) shall be in full satisfaction of all claims of 

10 Patricia Macarelli against the United States in connection 

11 with the matter described in such subsection. 

12 (c) NO INFERENCE OF LIABILITY.—Nothing in this 

13 Act shall be construed as an inference of liability on the 

14 part of the United States. 

15 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON ATTORNEYS’ AND AGENTS’ FEES. 

16 (a) IN GENERAL.—It shall be unlawful for an amount 

17 exceeding 25 percent of the amount paid pursuant to sec18 tion 1 to be paid to, or received by, any agent or attorney 

19 for any service rendered in connection with the payment 

20 under this Act, as set forth in the Federal Tort Claims 

21 Act (28 U.S.C. 2678 of title 28, United States Code). 

22 (b) ENFORCEMENT.—Any person who violates sub23 section (a) shall be guilty of an infraction and shall be 

24 fined under title 18, United States Code. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM PONDER
INDUSTRIES, INC.'S CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF AUGUST 31, 1997, AND ITS
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE YEAR THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1997
<CASH>                                               4
<SECURITIES>                                       800
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,791
<ALLOWANCES>                                       657
<INVENTORY>                                      2,622
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,606
<PP&E>                                          31,383
<DEPRECIATION>                                  14,278
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  26,617
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,452
<BONDS>                                          7,050
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           176
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,293
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    26,617
<SALES>                                         21,875
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                21,875
<CGS>                                            9,555
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,555
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                17,150
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   519
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,402
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (9,921)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (9,921)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,921)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.73)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.73)
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-1730

PETER C. PIRON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, McLean, VA; LEE

S. STRICKLAND,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge.

(CA-01-321-3)

Submitted: September 20, 2001 Decided: September 26, 2001

Before LUTTIG, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Peter C. Piron, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Peter C. Piron appeals from the district court’s order

dismissing as frivolous his action against the Central Intelligence

Agency. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on

the reasoning of the district court. Piron v. Central Intelligence

Agency, No. CA-01-321-3 (E.D. Va. May 15, 2001). 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
EXHIBIT 23
                              
                              
                              
               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



To   The   Board   of  Directors  of  The  Reader's   Digest
Association, Inc.:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration
statements (Registration Nos. 33-37434 and 33-56883) on Form
S-8   of   The   Reader's  Digest  Association,   Inc.   and
subsidiaries of our reports dated August 14, 1997,  relating
to  the  consolidated balance sheets of The Reader's  Digest
Association, Inc. and subsidiaries as of June 30,  1997  and
1996,  and  the related consolidated statements  of  income,
changes in stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each  of
the  years  in  the three-year period ended June  30,  1997,
which reports appear in or are incorporated by reference  in
the June 30, 1997 Annual Report on Form 10-K of The Reader's
Digest Association, Inc.


/s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

KPMG Peat Marwick LLP



New York, New York
September 25, 1997