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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999             JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       1,347,760             (2,194,485)
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                               17,864,497              12,694,796
<ALLOWANCES>                                   175,000                 275,000
<INVENTORY>                                 19,561,992              15,286,175
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            38,747,317              25,606,905
<PP&E>                                      14,234,225               9,243,052
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,107,768               3,104,063
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              52,850,004              31,939,977
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       13,357,927              10,925,108
<BONDS>                                    150,275,135               1,461,481
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                     1,400,000               1,400,000
<OTHER-SE>                               (112,183,058)              18,153,388
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                52,850,004              31,939,977
<SALES>                                     66,496,348              38,102,681
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            66,496,348              38,102,681
<CGS>                                       41,499,182              23,531,329
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               52,067,947              27,627,431
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               654,375                 (9,607)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,775,613                 209,745
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             10,998,413              10,275,112
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         10,998,413              10,275,112
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                10,998,413              10,275,112
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .37                    0.34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .37                    0.34


</TABLE>
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Applicants July 31, 2020","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"fNNXGOu5l6\"><a href=\"\/oti\/applicants-july-31-2020\/\">Applicants July 31, 2020<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/oti\/applicants-july-31-2020\/embed\/#?secret=fNNXGOu5l6\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Applicants July 31, 2020” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"fNNXGOu5l6\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 23

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

  We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-
K) of ADVO, Inc. ("ADVO") of our report dated October 19, 1999, included in
the 1999 Annual Report to Stockholders of ADVO.

  Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of ADVO listed in
Item 14(a). This schedule is the responsibility of the Company's management.
Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits. In our
opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above, when considered
in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole, presents
fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.

  We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements (Form S-8 No. 333-71679) pertaining to the 1998 Incentive
Compensation Plan, (Form S-8 No. 333-81365) pertaining to the MailCoups, Inc.
401(k) Savings Plan, (Form S-8 No. 333-38237) pertaining to the ADVO, Inc.'s
President's Club Stock Award Plan, (Form S-8 No. 333-11323) pertaining to the
ADVO, Inc. 401(k) Plan and in the related Prospectuses of our report dated
October 19, 1999, with respect to the consolidated financial statements
incorporated herein by reference, and our report included in the preceding
paragraph with respect to the financial statement schedule included in this
Annual Report (Form 10-K) of ADVO.

                                          /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Hartford, Connecticut
December 13, 1999
#### Ronald Anthony MANNO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Douglas F. GANSLER, Maryland Attorney General; Robert Koppel, Warden, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 07-7639.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 22, 2008.

Decided: May 27, 2008.

*281Ronald Anthony Manno, Appellant Pro Se. Cathleen C. Brockmeyer, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

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

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Ronald Anthony Manno seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Man-no has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal, and deny Manno’s motions for appointment of counsel and for summary judgment of his appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
IN THE COURT OFAPPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent,

v. D.D.Y., DOB: 03/28/1995, Appellant. o ) No. 69793-5-I r-o C.OO •—\ *"• ;o ) DIVISION ONE ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION CD -"-~°r

-

Vr _-t0 ) FILED: December 30, 2013 en -- ^., Per Curiam. D.D.Y appeals a juvenile court disposition finding him guilty of first degree child molestation, attempted first degree child molestation, and indecent exposure. D.D.Y.'s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw on the 

### ground that there is no basis for a good faith argument on review. Pursuantto State
v. Theobald. 78 Wn.2d 184, 470 P.2d 188 (1970), and Anders v. California. 386 U.S. 738, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967), the motion to withdraw must: 

### [1] be accompanied by a brief referring to anything inthe record that 

### mightarguably support the appeal. [2] A copy of counsel's briefshould be furnished the indigent and [3] time allowed him to raise any points 

### that he chooses; [4] the court-notcounsel-then proceeds, after a full examination of all the proceedings, to decide whetherthe case iswholly frivolous. 

### State v. Theobald. 78 Wn.2d at 185 (quoting Anders v. California, 386 U.S. at 744). 

### This procedure has been followed. D.D.Y.'s counsel filed a briefwith the motion to withdraw. D.D.Y. was served with a copy ofthe brief and informed of his 

### right tofile a statement ofadditional grounds forreview. He did notfile a statement ofadditional grounds. 

### The facts are accurately set forth incounsel's brief insupport of the motion to withdraw. The court has reviewed the briefs filed inthis court and has independentlyNo. 69793-5-112


### reviewed the entirerecord. The courtspecifically considered the following potential issues raised by counsel: 

### 1. Did the court abuse its discretion inallowing the State to amend the 

### information to add two additional counts—attempted first degree child molestation and indecentexposure—on the day of trial? The potential issues are wholly frivolous. Counsel's motion to withdraw is granted and the appeal is dismissed.

For the court:
​

Exhibit 10.1
FIRST HAWAIIAN, INC.
AMENDED & RESTATED 2016 NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR PLAN
RESTRICTED STOCK UNIT AWARD AGREEMENT FOR NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS
This Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreement (this “Award Agreement”) evidences an award of restricted stock units (“RSUs”) by First Hawaiian, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“First Hawaiian”), under the First Hawaiian, Inc. Amended & Restated 2016 Non-Employee Director Plan (as amended, supplemented or modified, from time to time, the “Plan”). Capitalized terms used but not defined in this Award Agreement have the meanings given to them in the Plan.
	Name of Grantee:
	(the “Grantee”).

	​
	​

	Grant Date:
	(the “Grant Date”).

	​
	​

	Number of RSUs:
	​

	​
	​

	Vesting Date:
	The earlier of (i) ______________, (ii) the date of First Hawaiian’s ____ annual meeting of stockholders or (iii) a Change in Control (the “Vesting Date”). The RSUs will only vest if the Grantee is, and has been, continuously serving as a Non-Employee Director from the Grant Date through the Vesting Date, and any unvested RSUs will be forfeited upon the termination of the Grantee’s service as a Non-Employee Director.

	​
	​

	Delivery Date:
	No later than 30 days after the Vesting Date, First Hawaiian will issue to the Grantee one Share for each RSU, subject to applicable tax withholding (the date the Shares are so issued, the “Delivery Date”).

	​
	​

	Dividends:
	On the Delivery Date, First Hawaiian will pay to the Grantee a cash amount equal to the product of (x) all cash dividends or other distributions (other than cash dividends or other distributions pursuant to which the RSUs were adjusted pursuant to Section 1.6.3 of the Plan), if any, paid on a Share from the Grant Date to the Delivery Date and (y) the number of Shares delivered to the Grantee on the Delivery Date (including for this purpose any Shares which would have been delivered on the Delivery Date but for being withheld to satisfy tax withholding obligations).

	​
	​

	All Other Terms:
	As set forth in the Plan.



​
The Plan is incorporated herein by reference.  Except as otherwise set forth in the Award Agreement, the Award Agreement and the Plan constitute the entire agreement and understanding of the parties with respect to the RSUs. In the event that any provision of the Award Agreement is inconsistent with the Plan, the terms of the Plan will control. By accepting this Award, the Grantee agrees to be subject to the terms and conditions of the Plan.
​

-1-



​

This Award Agreement may be executed in counterparts, which together will constitute one and the same original.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Award Agreement to be duly executed and effective as of the Grant Date.
​
	​


	​


	​


	​



	​
	FIRST HAWAIIAN, INC.

	​
	​

	​
	By:
	​

	​
	​
	Name:
	Robert S. Harrison

	​
	​
	Title:
	Chairman, President & CEO

	​
	​

	​
	​

	​
	GRANTEE



​

-2-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
audited balance sheet and audited statements of operations found on pages F-3
and F-4 of the Company's Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended May 31, 1998,
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1998
<CASH>                                             617
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                14,725
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  14,725
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           39,688
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                         1,400
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (26,363)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    14,725
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   840
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,230
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (9,390)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (9,390)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0

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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>

                               HEALTHEXTRAS, INC.
                            FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE
              AS OF AND FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2000


     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Balance Sheets and Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Loss of
HealthExtras, Inc. as of and for the year ended March 31, 2000 and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                     42,967,732
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  74,205
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           48,075,805
<PP&E>                                              0
<DEPRECIATION>                                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             50,393,930
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       9,778,829
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                      276,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 40,339,101
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               50,393,930
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            5,253,244
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              13,130,648
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (6,645,550)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (6,645,550)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                               (6,645,550)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.24)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 21

 

**SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT**

 

 

**Parent**

 

IBT            Bancorp, Inc.

 

 

|  

                             

**Subsidiaries** |   | **State or Other Jurisdiction of                            Incorporation** |   |  

**Percentage Ownership** |
|--------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------|
|                                                         |   |                                                                        |   |                             |
| Irwin Bank                                                   |   | Pennsylvania                                                                |   | 100%                             |
|                                                         |   |                                                                        |   |                             |
| T.A. of Irwin, LP                                            |   | Pennsylvania                                                                |   | 85%                              |
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George WILSON, III, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-6134.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 22, 2008.

Decided: May 29, 2008.

George Wilson, III, Appellant Pro Se. Nash W. Schott, United States Attorney’s Office, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

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

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

George Wilson, III, seeks to appeal the district court’s order treating his Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion, seeking to reopen his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) proceeding, as a successive § 2255 motion, and dismissing it on that basis. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); *Reid v. Angelone,*369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir.2004). A certificate *235of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude Wilson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Additionally, we construe Wilson’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. *United States v. Winestock,*340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence, not previously discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(2), 2255 (2000). Wilson’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion.

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.

*DISMISSED.*
**Exhibit 32.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Gaiam, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the periodending June 30, 2005, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jirka Rysavy, Chairman and ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

(1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a)or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 
| Date:  November 9, 2005 |                       |
|-------------------------|----------------------------|
|                    |                       |
|                    |                       |
|                    | /s/ Jirka  Rysavy          |   |
|                    | Jirka Rysavy               |
|                    | Chairman of  the Board and |
|                    | Chief  Executive Officer   |

 

1

----