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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
DATA FOR THE THREE MONTH PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           1,922
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,788
<ALLOWANCES>                                       274
<INVENTORY>                                      1,037
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,212
<PP&E>                                           4,323
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,793
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  25,864
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,843
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      7,578
<COMMON>                                            60
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,300
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    25,864
<SALES>                                          7,087
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,087
<CGS>                                            4,098
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,098
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,905
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  65
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     19
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 19
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        19
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.02)


</TABLE>
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 20620

CHAD FENLEY DAVIS , Petitioner

- Appellant

v. WILLIAM STEPHENS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION , Respondent

- Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:12

- CV

- 2919

Before KING, JOLLY and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Chad Fenley Davis, Texas prisoner # 1336883, is serving a life sentence for capital murder. He has moved for a certificate of a ppealability (COA) from the denial of a motion he filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) concerning his prior 28 U.S.C. § 2254 proceeding

. A COA is unnecessary because Davis merely asked the district court to reopen the time for filing an

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 29, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-20620 Document: 00513059626 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/29/2015No. 14

- 20620

appea l from the denial of the § 2254 petition

. See Dunn v. Cockrell , 302 F.3d 491, 492 & n.1 (5th Cir. 2002). Davis ’ s case is therefore before us on his motion to appeal IFP, and our inquiry “is limited to whether the appeal involves ‘legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).’” Howard v. King , 707 F. 2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (ci tation omitted). We review the denial of Davis’s Rule 60 motion for abuse of d iscretion. See Seven Elves, Inc. v. Eskenazi , 635 F.2d 396, 402 (5th Cir. 1981). The denial “must have been so unwarranted as to constitute an abuse of discretion.” Id . A Rule 60 motion may not be used to circumvent the time limits for appealing, espec ially where, as here, the motion was made after the period for seeking an extension of time for appeal has expired. See Dunn , 302 F.3d at 492

- 93; see also Perez v. Stephens , 745 F.3d 174, 177

- 79 (5th Cir.) (holding that Rule 60(b) does not permit circumve ntion of Rule 4’s time limits for appealing in a habeas case), cert. denied , 135 S. Ct. 401 (2014). Martinez v. Ryan , 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012) , does not help Davis because Martinez did not create an exception “to statutory limits on appellate jurisdiction.” Perez , 745 F.3d at 179. The denial of Davis’s Rule 60 motion was not an abuse of discretion , and his appeal lacks arguable merit

. See Howard , 7 07 F. 2 d at 220 ; Seven Elves , 635 F.2d at 402

. A COA is DENIED AS UNNECESSARY; the IFP motion is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED

. 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.

2 Case: 14-20620 Document: 00513059626 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/29/2015
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Pearl Hicks, Respondent, against Olga Boden et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal from decision and award of the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Claimant was a laundry worker who “ for years ” worked one day a week, on Friday. She received $8 for the day and twenty cents carfare. She was totally disabled in an accident. Her rate of compensation has been fixed by the board in pursuance of subdivision 3 of section 14 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, at $21.03 a week. The compensation thus fixed was almost three times her earnings. For the reasons stated in *Matter of Derion*v. *Gilford Mfg. Go.*(282 App. Div. 788), decided concurrently herewith, the decision and award of the Workmen’s Compensation Board are reversed, and the claim remitted to the board for further proceedings, with costs to appellants. Foster, P. J., Bergan, Coon and Imrie, JJ., concur.
#### Jerome Courtwright, as Administrator, etc., of Jasper Courtwright, Deceased, Appellant, v. Minnie Sherman, Respondent.

Motion granted.
(February 16, 1978)

#### Helen L. Barnes, Appellant, v Alfred W. Barnes, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered January 3, 1977 in Schenectady County, which granted defendant’s motion to vacate a divorce decree. Defendant failed to answer a matrimonial action instituted by his wife and a decree of divorce in plaintiff’s favor was entered on August 31, 1972 which incorporated the terms of a prior agreement between the parties. However, subsequent 1975 proceedings to enforce the support provisions of that decree were vigorously contested by defendant and they ultimately produced a small downward modification in his support obligation. By order to show cause dated June 23, 1976 defendant brought on the instant motion to vacate the original decree and plaintiff now appeals from the order of Special Term which granted relief without condition. While it is true that courts are liberal in opening defaults in matrimonial actions, even if it is assumed that defendant has demonstrated an adequate excuse for the default, several other factors persuade us that Special Term improvidently exercised its discretion in this case. Defendant waited almost four years before challenging the decree and admitted during enforcement proceedings that he had originally consented to having his wife obtain it. The suggestion that plaintiff did not meet residency requirements is meritless (see *Lacks v Lacks,*41 NY2d 71) and her asserted cohabitation with another following the divorce has no bearing on the existence of a meritorious defense at the time the divorce was procured. Although he advances other defensive matters, it is obvious that defendant has no desire to perpetuate this marriage and that his only abiding concern is to be free of the duty to support.plaintiff. No appeal was taken from the intervening enforcement orders and, under the somewhat unusual circumstances pre*864sented, defendant should not now be given the opportunity to collaterally attack those determinations. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, and motion denied, with costs. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Kane and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of James Collins, Appellant, v Alice Sachs et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of the City of New York, Respondents, and Sandra D. Davis et al., Respondents. In the Matter of Miriam J. Klusky et al., Respondents, v James K. Collins, Appellant, and Joseph J. Previte et al., Constituting the Board of Elections of the City of New York, Respondents.

In proceedings to (1) validate petitions designating James Collins as a candidate in the election to be held on May 3, 1977 for the public position of Member of the New York City Community School Board, District 11, and (2) invalidate the said petitions, the appeals, which have been transferred to this court by an order of the Appellate Division, First Judicial Department, dated April 19, 1977, are from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Bronx County, both dated April 11, 1977 and made after a hearing, (1) the first of which denied the application to validate the petitions and (2) the second of which granted the application to invalidate the petitions. Judgments affirmed, without costs or disbursements (see *Matter of Bernhardt v Sachs,*57 AD2d 598). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Margett, Damiani and Rabin, JJ., concur.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELLEN M. PALMER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SANTA ROSA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL,

Defendant. /

No. C 08-03385 JSW

ORDER REFERRING MOTION

FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES TO

MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to Local Rule 72-1, Plaintiff’s motion for an award of attorneys’ fees is

HEREBY REFERRED to a randomly assigned magistrate judge to prepare a report and

recommendation. The hearing date of February 19, 2010 is therefore VACATED. The parties

will be advised of the date, time and place of appearance by notice from the assigned magistrate

judge. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 19, 2010 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: Wings Hom

Case 3:08-cv-03385-JSW Document 50 Filed 01/19/10 Page 1 of 1
#### BENNETT, Respondent, v. HAYS, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

March 29, 1905.)

Action by James H. Bennett against William H. Hays. No opinion.- Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.
#### In the Matter of the Accounting of Aline C. J. Ellis, as Executrix of Joseph Ellis, Deceased, as Executor of Rose Shapiro, Deceased.

Appeal dismissed unless records and briefs are filed and served on or before April 12, 1961. Respondent’s brief must be filed by April 27,1961 if appeal is to be argued at May 1961 Term.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 11

ALLIN CORPORATION

CALCULATION OF NET LOSS PER COMMON SHARE

                 (Dollars in thousands, except per share data)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                      Three Months          Three Months         Nine Months          Nine Months
                                                         Ended                 Ended                Ended                Ended
                                                     September 30,         September 30,        September 30,         September 30,
                                                          1999                  2000                 1999                 2000
                                                   ------------------     ----------------     -----------------    ----------------

<S>                                                <C>                    <C>                  <C>                  <C>
Net loss                                           $             (523)    $         (1,220)    $         (2,391)    $        (2,260)


Accretion and dividends on preferred stock                        152                  142                  546                 449
                                                   ------------------     ----------------     ----------------     ---------------

Net loss attributable to common shareholders       $             (675)    $         (1,362)    $         (2,937)    $        (2,709)

                                                   ==================     ================     ================     ===============

Net loss per common share attributable to common
         shareholders - basic and diluted          $            (0.11)    $          (0.21)    $          (0.49)    $         (0.44)

                                                   ==================     ================     ================     ===============

Weighted average common shares outstanding
         during the period                                  5,988,063            6,512,765            5,988,063           6,176,651

Effect of restricted common stock                             (18,901)                 ---              (18,901)                ---
                                                   ------------------     ----------------     ----------------     ---------------

Shares used in calculating net loss per common
         share                                              5,969,162             6,512,765           5,969,162          6,176,651
                                                   ==================     =================    ================     ==============


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

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from financial
data for the three month period ended June 30, 1997 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements. Dollar amounts in thousands,
except earnings per share.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           7,164
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,994
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (54)
<INVENTORY>                                         39
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,940
<PP&E>                                          10,968
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,745
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  26,766
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,741
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      2,500
<COMMON>                                            52
<OTHER-SE>                                      20,473
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    26,766
<SALES>                                          2,543
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,543
<CGS>                                            1,383
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,383
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,370
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (106)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,104)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        48
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,152)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,152)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.62)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.62)
        

</TABLE>
### §300x–66. Services for individuals with co-occurring disorders

States may use funds available for treatment under sections 300x and 300x–21 of this title to treat persons with co-occurring substance use disorders and mental disorders as long as funds available under such sections are used for the purposes for which they were authorized by law and can be tracked for accounting purposes.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title XIX, §1956, as added Pub. L. 106–310, div. B, title XXXIV, §3407, Oct. 17, 2000, 114 Stat. 1222; amended Pub. L. 117–328, div. FF, title I, §1241(a)(13), Dec. 29, 2022, 136 Stat. 5678.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2022—Pub. L. 117–328 substituted "substance use disorders" for "substance abuse".
```

[115th Congress Public Law 357]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 132 STAT. 5077]]

Public Law 115-357
115th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
108 North Macon Street in Bevier, Missouri, as the ``SO2 Navy SEAL Adam 
    Olin Smith Post Office''. <<NOTE: Dec. 21, 2018 -  [H.R. 5475]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SO2 NAVY SEAL ADAM OLIN SMITH POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 108 North Macon Street in Bevier, Missouri, shall be known 
and designated as the ``SO2 Navy SEAL Adam Olin Smith Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``SO2 Navy 
SEAL Adam Olin Smith Post Office''.

    Approved December 21, 2018.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 5475:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 164 (2018):
            Dec. 11, considered and passed House.
            Dec. 19, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
**Exhibit 32.3**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

 Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of MarkWest Hydrocarbon, Inc. (the “Company”),on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2005, as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,James G. Ivey, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to the best ofmy knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/JAMES G. IVEY |   |
|------------------|--------|

 

JamesG. Ivey

Chief Financial Officer

 

January 10,2006

 

----
§ 229.425 Counseling and use of appraisal and counseling materials. ( a ) *Counseling.* A recipient shall not discriminate against any person on the basis of sex in the counseling or guidance of students or applicants for admission.
( b ) *Use of appraisal and counseling materials.* A recipient that uses testing or other materials for appraising or counseling students shall not use different materials for students on the basis of their sex or use materials that permit or require different treatment of students on such basis unless such different materials cover the same occupations and interest areas and the use of such different materials is shown to be essential to eliminate sex bias. Recipients shall develop and use internal procedures for ensuring that such materials do not discriminate on the basis of sex. Where the use of a counseling test or other instrument results in a substantially disproportionate number of members of one sex in any particular course of study or classification, the recipient shall take such action as is necessary to assure itself that such disproportion is not the result of discrimination in the instrument or its application.
( c ) *Disproportion in classes.* Where a recipient finds that a particular class contains a substantially disproportionate number of individuals of one sex, the recipient shall take such action as is necessary to assure itself that such disproportion is not the result of discrimination on the basis of sex in counseling or appraisal materials or by counselors.
EXHIBIT
32.1




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Pacific Biometrics, Inc. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March  31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Ronald
R. Helm, Chief Executive Officer, and John P. Jensen, Vice President of Finance
and Controller, of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





2.           the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.





Date: May
15, 2009




/s/
      Ronald R. HelmRonald
      R. Helm,Chief
      Executive Officer


/s/
      John P. JensenJohn
      P. JensenVice
      President of Finance and Controller
###### Editorial Note on Part 133

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 133 appear at 68 FR 66582, Nov. 26, 2003.

#### § 133.635 Drug-free workplace.

*Drug-free workplace* means a site for the performance of work done in connection with a specific award at which employees of the recipient are prohibited from engaging in the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession, or use of a controlled substance.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<CIK> 0001020476
<NAME> THE KROLL-O'GARA COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                        239,588
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               239,588
<CGS>                                          149,106
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  149,106
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                75,015
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 (298)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,094
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,334
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,108
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,226
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                        (778)
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,448
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.29


</TABLE>