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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       4,661,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,938,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   169,000
<INVENTORY>                                  4,920,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            19,881,000
<PP&E>                                      22,699,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               9,542,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              51,730,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,113,000
<BONDS>                                      4,305,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       148,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  40,598,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                51,730,000
<SALES>                                     37,273,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            37,273,000
<CGS>                                       21,135,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               21,135,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            12,078,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             203,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,357,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,307,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,050,000
<DISCONTINUED>                             (1,980,000)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,070,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .13
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 13.2

****

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 Annual Report of Avino Silver & Gold Mines Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2015 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Malcolm Davidson, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:



(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 results of operations of the Company.

|                    |     |                             | 
|------------------- | --- | --------------------------- | 
|Date: April 7, 2016 | By: | /s/ Malcolm Davidson        | 
|                    |     | Malcolm Davidson            | 
|                    |     | Principal Financial Officer |
### §2009aa–5. Distressed counties and areas and nondistressed counties

#### (a) Designations

Not later than 90 days after December 21, 2000, and annually thereafter, the Authority, in accordance with such criteria as the Authority may establish, shall designate—

(1) as distressed counties, counties in the region that are the most severely and persistently distressed and underdeveloped and have high rates of poverty or unemployment;

(2) as nondistressed counties, counties in the region that are not designated as distressed counties under paragraph (1); and

(3) as isolated areas of distress, areas located in nondistressed counties (as designated under paragraph (2)) that have high rates of poverty or unemployment.

#### (b) Distressed counties

#### (1) In general

The Authority shall allocate at least 75 percent of the appropriations made available under section 2009aa–12 of this title for programs and projects designed to serve the needs of distressed counties and isolated areas of distress in the region.

#### (2) Funding limitations

The funding limitations under section 2009aa–3(b) of this title shall not apply to a project providing transportation or basic public services to residents of one or more distressed counties or isolated areas of distress in the region.

#### (c) Nondistressed counties

#### (1) In general

Except as provided in this subsection, no funds shall be provided under this subchapter for a project located in a county designated as a nondistressed county under subsection (a)(2).

#### (2) Exceptions

#### (A) In general

The funding prohibition under paragraph (1) shall not apply to grants to fund the administrative expenses of local development districts under section 2009aa–4(b) of this title.

#### (B) Multicounty projects

The Authority may waive the application of the funding prohibition under paragraph (1) to—

(i) a multicounty project that includes participation by a nondistressed county; or

(ii) any other type of project;

if the Authority determines that the project could bring significant benefits to areas of the region outside a nondistressed county.

#### (C) Isolated areas of distress

For a designation of an isolated area of distress for assistance to be effective, the designation shall be supported—

(i) by the most recent Federal data available; or

(ii) if no recent Federal data are available, by the most recent data available through the government of the State in which the isolated area of distress is located.

#### (d) Transportation and basic public infrastructure

The Authority shall allocate at least 50 percent of any funds made available under section 2009aa–12 of this title for transportation and basic public infrastructure projects authorized under paragraphs (1) and (3) of section 2009aa–2(a) of this title.

(Pub. L. 87–128, title III, §382F, as added Pub. L. 106–554, §1(a)(4) [div. B, title V, §503], Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A–277.)
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Fernando Narvaez a/k/a * From the 35th District Court

Fernando Aguirre Narvaez, of Brown County,

Trial Court No. CR27788.

Vs. No. 11-21-00273-CR * July 7, 2023

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Williams, J. 

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no 

error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, 

the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
- 1 - 

Alexander Van der Bellen 

Managing Director and 

Associate General Counsel 

Delta Air Lines, Inc. 

1212 New York Avenue NW 

Washington, DC 20005 

202.842.4184 

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com 

 

May 5, 2011 

Ms. Dorothy Beard 

Chief-Docket Operations 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Delta/China Eastern Codeshare Application 

 Docket OST-2011-0065 

Dear Ms. Beard: 

Enclosed for filing in the docket is an amendment to the Delta/China Eastern codeshare 

agreement. Thank you for your assistance. 

Sincerely, 

Alexander Van der Bellen 

Managing Director, Government Affairs 

 and Associate General Counsel 

cc: Evelyn D. Sahr, Esq. 

 James G. Ehrig, Esq.
### §2705. Findings and issuance of orders

After notice and opportunity for hearing as provided in section 2704 of this title, the Secretary shall issue an order if he finds, and sets forth in such order, upon the evidence introduced at such hearing, that the issuance of such order and all the terms and conditions thereof will tend to effectuate the declared policy of this chapter.

(Pub. L. 93–428, §6, Oct. 1, 1974, 88 Stat. 1173.)
[Cite as State ex rel. Lear Operations Corp. v. Crispen, 124 Ohio St.3d 444, 2010-Ohio-686.] 

THE STATE EX REL. LEAR OPERATIONS CORPORATION, APPELLEE, v. CRISPEN,

APPELLANT, ET AL. 

[Cite as State ex rel. Lear Operations Corp. v. Crispen, 

124 Ohio St.3d 444, 2010-Ohio-686.] 

Workers’ compensation — Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed. 

(No. 2008-2326 — Submitted February 16, 2010 — Decided March 4, 2010.) 

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, 

No. 07AP-428, 2008-Ohio-5256. 

__________________ 

{¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed consistent with 

the opinion of the court of appeals. 

 MOYER, C.J., and LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL,

LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 

 PFEIFER, J., dissents and would reverse the judgment of the court of 

appeals. 

__________________ 

 Constance A. Snyder, for appellee Lear Operations Corporation. 

 Gallon, Takacs, Boissoneault & Schaffer and Martha Joyce Wilson, for 

appellant. 

 Richard Cordray, Attorney General, and Sandra E. Pinkerton, Assistant 

Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission of Ohio. 

______________________
#### 1032.202 General.
#### RAYNOR, Appellant, v. PRUDENTIAL INS. CO. OF AMERICA, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

January 9, 1903.)

Action by Ellen A. Raynor against the Prudential Insurance Company of America.

No opinion. Motion granted.
#### In the Matter of the Accounting *of*Ruth C. Bennett as Administratrix of the Estate of Charles W. Carpenter, Deceased, Respondent. William Matthews et al., Appellants.

Motion to dispense with printing of certain exhibits granted. The originals thereof to he handed up upon the argument or submission of the appeal. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Christ, JJ., concur.
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 Esterline Technologies Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended February 1, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), I, Robert W. Cremin,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)    The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

(2)    The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.





|                      |  |     |  |                                                
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------
|Dated:  March 6, 2008 |  | By: |  | /s/ Robert W. Cremin                           
|                      |  |     |  | Robert W. Cremin                               
|                      |  |     |  | Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
### §614. Separability

If any provision of this chapter is declared unconstitutional, or the applicability thereof to any person, circumstance, or commodity is held invalid the validity of the remainder of this chapter and the applicability thereof to other persons, circumstances, or commodities shall not be affected thereby.

(May 12, 1933, ch. 25, title I, §14, 48 Stat. 39; June 3, 1937, ch. 296, §1, 50 Stat. 246.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Validity of Section Affirmed

Act June 3, 1937, §1, affirmed and validated, and reenacted without change the provisions of this section. See note set out under section 601 of this title.
§ 93.3 Definitions. ( a ) *Service of process.* Refers to the delivery of a summons and complaint, or other document the purpose of which is to give notice of a proceeding or to establish the jurisdiction of a court or administrative proceeding, in the manner prescribed by § 93.1(d), to an officer or agency of the United States named in court or administrative proceedings.
( b ) *Demand.* Refers to the delivery of a subpoena, order, or other directive of a court of competent jurisdiction, or other specific authority, for the production, disclosure, or release of official information, or for the appearance and testimony of NSA personnel as witnesses.
( c ) *NSA personnel.* (or NSA person) Includes present and former civilian employees of NSA (including non-appropriated fund activity employees), and present and former military personnel assigned to NSA. NSA personnel also includes non-U.S. nationals who perform services overseas for NSA under the provisions of status of forces or other agreements, and specific individuals hired through contractual agreements by or on behalf of NSA.
( d ) *Litigation.* Refers to all pretrial, trial, and post-trial stages of all existing or reasonably anticipated judicial or administrative actions, hearings, investigations, or similar proceedings before civilian courts, commissions, boards, or other tribunals, foreign and domestic. It includes responses to discovery requests, depositions, and other pretrial proceedings, as well as responses to formal or informal requests by attorneys or others in situations involving litigation.
( e ) *Official information.* Is information of any kind, in any storage medium, whether or not classified or protected from disclosure by § 93.l(c) that: ( 1 ) Is in the custody and control of NSA; or
( 2 ) Relates to information in the custody and control of NSA; or
( 3 ) Was acquired by NSA personnel as part of their official duties or because of their official status within NSA.
( f ) *General Counsel.* Refers to the NSA General Counsel (GC), or in the GC's absence, the NSA Deputy GC, or in both of their absences, the NSA Assistant GC (Administration/Litigation).
( g ) *NSA attorney.* Refers to an attorney in the NSA Office of General Counsel (OGC).
EXHIBIT 99.2

                            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 Annual Report of CreditRiskMonitor.com, Inc. ("CRM") on
Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Lawrence
Fensterstock, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 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 results of operations
            of the Company.


                                   By: /s/ Lawrence Fensterstock
                                           Lawrence Fensterstock
                                           Chief Financial Officer

March 31, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to CRM and will be retained by CRM and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-10102

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

LAKEITH DONTRELL OFFORD,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:15-CR-470-1

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Lakeith Dontrell 

Offord has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Offord has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 22, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-10102 Document: 00514358061 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/22/2018
No. 17-10102

2

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw

is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 17-10102 Document: 00514358061 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/22/2018
<TABLE>

				  EXHIBIT 11.1

			 CORCOM, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

		    COMPUTATION OF INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE

	       for the years ended December 31, 1995, 1994 and 1995

		 (Amounts in thousands except per share information)

<CAPTION>

						   1995       1994       1993
<S>                                               <C>        <C>      <C>
Common and common equivalent shares:
  Average shares outstanding                       3,686      3,570     3,560
  Additional shares assuming exercise of dilutive 
    stock options, based on the treasury stock 
    method using average market price                181        150

Average number of common and common
    equivalent shares                              3,867      3,720     3,560

Net income (loss)                                 $2,786     $1,243   $(2,047)

Net income (loss) per common and common 
   equivalent share                              $   .72    $   .33 $    (.58)

Net income (loss) per common and common 
     equivalent share, assuming full dilution:
    Average shares outstanding                     3,686      3,570     3,560
    Additional shares assuming exercise of 
     dilutive stock options, based on the 
     treasury stock method using the period-end 
     price if higher than the average market price   209        152

Fully diluted average number of common
     and common equivalent shares                  3,895      3,722     3,560

Net income (loss)                                 $2,786     $1,243   $(2,047)

Net income (loss) per common and common 
   equivalent share                             $    .72     $  .33   $  (.58)

<FN>
Note:  Common equivalent shares were not considered in the 1993 computations 
since they would have been anti-dilutive.  They were, however, taken into 
account for 1994.
</TABLE>
<PAGE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Louis Michael Grieco, Defendant, and John Shahinian and Lillian Shahinian, Also Known as Lillian Emmons, Appellants.

Motion by appellants for enlargement of time to perfect their appeal, granted; time enlarged to the April Term, commencing March 27, 1961; appeal is ordered on the calendar for said term. Beldock, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
#### ELLINGTON v. HESTER

No. 451P97

Case below: 127 N.OApp. 172

Petition by plaintiffs for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 6 November 1997.
No. 8224.

#### Dovel *v.*Dovel et al.

(Decided January 26, 1904.)

Error to Circuit Court of Fairfield county.

*Mr. W. E. Lane; Mr. G. W. McCleery*and *Mr. A. E. Dovel,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. G. D. Martin; Mr. M. A. Daugherty; Mr. L. B. Tussing; Mr. T. E. Dolson*and *Mr. G. E.*Martin, for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed on authority of *Ryan*v. *Rothweiler,*50 Ohio St., 595.

Spear, Davis, Shauck, Price and Crew, JJ., concur.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

 NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHHER SINGH,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-72322

Agency No. A098-520-055

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 15, 2011** 

Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

Chher Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board

of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s

(“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and

protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction

FILED

JUN 23 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-72322

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, Li v. Ashcroft, 378

F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir. 2004), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination

because the IJ made a specific and cogent demeanor finding, see Arulampalam v.

Ashcroft, 353 F.3d 679, 686 (9th Cir. 2003), and because Singh’s testimony was

inconsistent with his asylum interview statements regarding the nature and extent

of the claimed beating and resulting injury, see Li, 378 F.3d. at 962-64. In the

absence of credible testimony, Singh’s asylum and withholding of removal claims

fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Because Singh’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony found to be not

credible, and he points to no other evidence the IJ should have considered,

substantial evidence also supports the denial of CAT relief. See id. at 1156-57.

Finally, we reject Singh’s contention that the agency failed to adequately

consider his documentary evidence. See Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092,

1096 (9th Cir. 2000) (petitioner must overcome the presumption the agency

considered all the evidence).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

* * *

INNOVATIO IP VENTURES, LLC,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MEI-GSR HOLDINGS LLC dba GRAND

SIERRA RESORT AND CASINO,

Defendant.

 

)

) 

)

)

)

) 

) 

)

)

)

)

3:11-CV-00343-LRH-WGC

ORDER

Before the court is Defendant MEI-GSR Holdings LLC’s Motion to Stay (#27 ). Plaintiff 1

Innovatio IP Ventures, LLC filed an opposition (#29), and Defendant replied (#34).

Defendant moves to stay this patent infringement action pending resolution of a declaratory

relief action filed against Plaintiff in the District of Delaware by suppliers of the allegedly

infringing products, Cisco Systems, Inc. and Motorola Solutions, Inc. v. Innovatio IP Ventures,

LLC, Case No. 1:11-cv-425 (D. Del.). On December 27, 2011, this court entered an order (#35)

deferring resolution of Defendant’s motion and staying this matter for 30 days pending a decision

by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on the suppliers’ motion to transfer this action and

others to the District of Delaware and to consolidate the actions for coordinated pretrial

proceedings. The next day, this court received notice (#36) of the MDL Panel’s order transferring

Refers to court’s docket entry number. 1
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

this case and others to the Northern District of Illinois for coordinated or consolidated pretrial

proceedings with an action pending in that district. See In re Innovatio IP Ventures, LLC, Patent

Litigation, M.D.L. No. 2303 (J.P.M.L.).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Stay (#27) is DENIED as

moot, and this court’s order (#35) granting a 30-day stay is VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 29th day of December, 2011.

__________________________________

LARRY R. HICKS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 2
#### 1019.202 Specific policies.
#### STATE v. MORROW

No. 526P97

Case below: 127 N.C.App. 558

Petition by defendant (Morrow) for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 4 December 1997.