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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                          0000032284
<NAME>                                         Orion Diversified Technologies

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              APR-30-2001
<PERIOD-START>                                 MAY-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   OCT-31-2000
<CASH>                                              0
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    0
<PP&E>                                              0
<DEPRECIATION>                                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         149,170
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                       18,469
<OTHER-SE>                                          0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        0
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    0
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               18,958
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (18,958)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 0
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (18,958)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .00



</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 99.1





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 Annual Report of Venture Catalyst Incorporated (the Company) on Form
10-KSB for the year ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, L. Donald Speer, II, Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer, President and Chief Operating 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 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.





By:

/s/    L. DONALD SPEER,
IIL. Donald Speer, II Chairman of the
Board, Chief Executive Officer, President and Chief Operating
Officer


Dated:    September 30, 2002
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A18A0275. JOSEPH DINGLER v. HEATHER MOORE.

Joseph Dingler filed this direct appeal from a family violence protective order

entered against him. We, however, lack jurisdiction.

In Schmidt v. Schmidt, 270 Ga. 461, 461-462 (1) (510 SE2d 810) (1999), the

Supreme Court determined that actions arising under the Family Violence Act,

OCGA § 19-13-1 et seq., constitute domestic relations cases within the meaning of

OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (2). Accordingly, appeals in family violence actions must be

made by application for discretionary appeal. See Schmidt, supra. Because Dingler

failed to follow the proper appellate procedure, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack

of jurisdiction.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

October 05, 2017

10/05/2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

ORDER OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

It appearing that an Order of the Executive Committee was entered on June 4, 2012 reassigning cases

from the judges of this Court to form the initial calendar of the Honorable John Lee, and

It further appearing that Judge Lee has recused himself from presiding over 12 CV 1505, CP Prods.

v. Does, previously pending before the Hon. Gary Feinerman, therefore.

Following the procedures approved by the Court for the creation of an initial calendar, 12 CV 1505,

CP Prods. v. Does, is hereby reassigned to Judge Feinerman who may identify a case requiring like judicial

effort for disposition to be reassigned to Judge Lee as a replacement for 12 CV 1505.

ENTER:

FOR THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

 Chief Judge James F. Holderman

Dated at Chicago, Illinois this 8th day of June, 2012

Case: 1:12-cv-01505 Document #: 20 Filed: 06/08/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:68
162 So. 59

#### AYALA v. AYALA.

No. 32893.

May 27, 1935.

Harold J. Moore, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Henry G. Huckabee, of New Orleans, for appellee.

FOURNET, Justice.

Plaintiff, Alfred J. Ayala, filed suit against his wife, Minerva Kunkel Ayala, *509for a divorce, based upon the provisions of Act No. 31 of 1932, amending Act No. 269 of 1916, alleging that they had been living separate and apart continuously for a period of four years. The wife answered, denying the allegations of the petition, and averring that her husband cohabited with her during that period and visited her constantly, citing thirteen dates as interruptions during the year 1932. The lower court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff, whereupon defendant filed a motion for a new trial which was denied, and she has appealed.

The record shows that plaintiff and his wife became estranged in November, 1917. Defendant brought proceedings against her husband to have him pay alimony, which he was ordered to pay, but from lack of employment and earning capacity he was unable to keep up the payments. On several occasions she had him brought before the courts to answer for his failures to pay the alimony, and at one time he was placed in jail. Plaintiff visited his wife in the daytime and at the home of his wife’s parents, where she lived, and on these visits there were other people in the same room with them.

Plaintiff contends that the sole purpose of his visits to the home of his mother-in-law was to plead with his wife to be lenient with him on account of his inability to pay the alimony.

Defendant, on the .other hand, testified that when her husband visited at her mother’s home on the alleged occasions, even though her parents might have been present, she and her husband retired to her bedroom on the second floor of the house, and there cohabited as man and wife, and that she was led to believe that her husband would return to her, all of which plaintiff vigorously denied.

Counsel barely referred to his client’s testimony with reference to their cohabitation; but he urged and seriously argued that, within the meaning and contemplation of Act No. 31 -of 1932, the living separate and apart is interrupted when the husband visits his wife at her place of residence, regardless of the circumstances and conditions under which they meet. We do not agree with counsel’s theory. On the contrary, we believe that it is to the best interest of society and the parties concerned that estranged spouses be encouraged to continue their friendly relations and thereby increase the probability of a reconciliation.

We are of the opinion that the trial judge, who saw and heard the witnesses, was in a better position than we are to appreciate the weight to be given to their testimony, and from our examination of the evidence, we do not think he erred. The judgment of the lower court is, therefore, affirmed.
#### COLMIER, Respondent, v. CITY OF SYRACUSE, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

October 27, 1903.)

Action by Herman Colmier against the city of Syracuse.

PER CURIAM.

Interlocutory judgment affirmed, with costs, with leave to the defendant to answer, upon payment of the costs of the lemurrer and of this appeal.

STOVER, J., not voting.
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Annual Report of MDI, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael Sweet,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





(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.





/s/
      Michael SweetMichael
      SweetPrincipal
      Financial OfficerAugust
      29, 2008
Case: 3:12-cv-50076 Document #: 10 Filed: 05/21/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:20
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

The undersigned, Donald C. Wood, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Federal Realty Investment Trust (the Company), has executed this certification in connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission of the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 (the Report). The undersigned hereby certifies, to the best of his knowledge, 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|            |  |                                                                             
|----------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|May 6, 2009 |  | /s/    Donald C. Wood                                                       
|            |  | Donald C. Wood,                                                             
|            |  | President, Chief Executive Officer and Trustee (Principal Executive Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>        5
<MULTIPLIER>     1
       
<S>                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>               6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>           APR-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                OCT-31-1996
<CASH>                          272,313       
<SECURITIES>                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                 2,467,784  
<ALLOWANCES>                    110,161
<INVENTORY>                   1,512,764 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              5,290,231
<PP&E>                        1,319,424
<DEPRECIATION>                  894,480
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                9,719,504
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         4,427,008
<BONDS>                               0
<COMMON>                         94,279
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0
<PREFERRED>                     100,000
<OTHER-SE>                    4,297,531
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  9,719,504
<SALES>                      11,424,788
<TOTAL-REVENUES>             11,424,788
<CGS>                         9,366,536
<TOTAL-COSTS>                11,220,868
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  6,249
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              123,097
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  87,072
<INCOME-TAX>                     17,700
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              69,372
<DISCONTINUED>                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0
<CHANGES>                             0
<NET-INCOME>                     69,372
<EPS-PRIMARY>                       .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                       .01
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATION BY PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**I, James Kerr, certify that:1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Jo-Ann Stores, Inc. (the“registrant”);2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;4) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared; (b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internalcontrol over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to providereasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparationof financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally acceptedaccounting principles; (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: June 8, 2006/s/ James Kerr
#### 1335.017-2 Establishing or changing an FFRDC.

The designee authorized to approve the establishment of an FFRDC, or change its basic purpose and mission, is set forth in CAM 1301.70.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Quinton Skipwith, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant: (1) from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County, rendered April 24, 1964 on his plea of guilty, convicting him of a violation of section 974 of the Penal Law (policy) and imposing sentence; (2) from an order of said court, dated April 24,1964, which directed that a certain sum of money taken by the police upon a search of the defendant’s residence, pursuant to a search warrant, be delivered to the County Treasurer for deposit in the General Fund of Orange County; and (3) from an order of said court, dated January 30, 1963, which denied defendant’s motion for the return of the said money. Judgment affirmed. Appeal from order of April 24, 1964 dismissed. That order was made and entered ex parte; no appeal lies from such an order. Defendant’s remedy is to institute an appropriate proceeding for vacatur of the order, if defendant be so advised. Order of January 30, 1963 modified on the law as follows: (1) by striking out the provision that the denial is without prejudice to an application under section 813-e of the Code of Criminal Procedure; and (2) by substituting therefor a provision that the denial is without prejudice to any appropriate plenary action or proceeding which defendant may be advised to institute for the purpose of obtaining restitution of the said money. As so modified, the said order is affirmed. Since no criminal prosecution is now pending, an application under section 813-e of the Code of Criminal Procedure would not be an appropriate remedy. (For a prior appeal from order of January 30, 1963, see *People*v. *Skipwith,*20 A D 2d 662.) Kleinfeld, Acting P. J., Christ, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
# E ECUTIVE FL!TEWAVS January 15, 2014 ONE CLARKDRIVE, RONKONKOMA, NY 11779 (631) 588-3480 ext. 128 fax: (631)**588-55~7.-,**

## IE'rf
... ".I i 1\ 

## 01-



## .**:~;:JRTfi.TION** 'u"':_:

### ~?ER/..TICJ,

## .S**zu~~** 

### Ft:3 

## -3 p /: 

## 41 This letter constitutes a formal request for an exemption to eliminate the six month trial period to add the iPad Mini and iPad Air to our list of approved EFB's. Executive Fliteways, Inc. (EFI) first obtained approval for a paperless cockpit utilizing the Solid FX EFB April of 2011. At that time Apple had yet to complete the required decompression testing ofthe iPad which would permit use ofthe device as a Class I EFB. Once the testing had been accomplished, EFI received approval to immediately begin using the iPad I and II without another six month trial period. Since that time, the units have operated without any problem or incident reported by any flight crewmember. Apple has since introduced two variants of the original iPad called the iPad Mini and iPad Air. They are virtually identical to the original iPad except that the mini has a smaller screen and the Air has a retina display and faster processor. The operating system, processors etc., are basically identical to the original version
.



## . W.f? have tested the iPad Mini and the iPad Air in each of our aircraft to ensure that there are no issues ofelectromagnetic interference with any aircraft system. We utilized

.,. .the 

## FAA**EF~** Electromagnetic Compatibility Assessment form to conduct these reviews
.



## .**,J~st** as we found ·with the original iPad, there are no negative affects to any aircraft

system utilizing either unit. A six month trial period to ens.ure .that the -iPad .Mini and Air perform identically to the larger variant seems pointless and in reality will cause an economic hardship as we will be required. to maintain three workable EFB's and obtain an additional Jeppesen subscription for each additional EFB. Additionally;- there seems to be a non-standard interpretation ofthe need for subsequent trial periods as other FSDO's have waived this requirement for their operators. I believe the original purpose of the· six month trial ·period was to ensure that the operator has the internal controls and procedures to perform terminal and enroute operations safely in a paperless environment and as EFB's were new to the industry, to ensure their reliabllity
..We have utilized EFB's for almost three years without a single qperational error nor has a malfunction of an iPad been reported by any crewmember. The.idea of

### anoth~~**~ix** month trial period seems redundant and wasteful.

< '"•' ,,•' '' • I Your.attention

# .to,this ma.tter is.greatly-appreciated:

""'
.. ; .. 'I**~ ·~** **~** •·'**~** 

### ..**K~!}neth ~s.**  Gray ·.. · Director of Operations

• f '**~ ~**  _'I, • ...... • - r• •r ·**~** ,**~** .. """ ,._.. 'j:• J 1 f**.,~** 1 • · _, ""\ !&"**~** • • • •**~ ~~** **~ ~**  - .. - • "' - \ - ... lljl ,. • .. '
... -

. r''**~** ' ·.:·· r- .... ' " t.**~.** . •• l-•**~. ~**  ·• .... -... .**~** ... )**~** '- 

### . 

## .
. 

## - ... .. 1: • ' .· ; ..' .**~·** . ,_ ....
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-6450
DARRIEL MANER, Petitioner - Appellant,
v. ANTHONY PADULA, Warden Lee Correctional Institution, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (0:07-cv-00541-MBS) Submitted: June 19, 2008 Decided: June 25, 2008 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Darriel Maner, Appellant Pro Se. Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General John William McIntosh, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Darriel Maner seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 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. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Maner has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the 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
1631.205-75 Selling costs. ( a ) FAR 31.205-38 is modified to eliminate from allowable costs those costs related to sales promotion and the payment of sales commissions fees or salaries to employees or outside commercial or selling agencies for enrolling Federal subscribers in a particular FEHB plan.
( b ) Selling costs are allowable costs to FEHBP contracts to the extent that they are necessary for conducting annual contract negotiations with the Government and for liaison activities necessary for ongoing contract administration. Personnel and related travel costs are allowable for attendance at Open Season Health fairs and other similar activities at which carriers give enrollees information about their choices among health plans (but see FAR 31.205-1 ‘Public relations and advertising costs’, and The Federal Employees Health Benefits Handbook for Personnel and Payroll Offices, Subchapter S2-3(f) ‘Controlling contacts between employees and carriers’).
[52 FR 16041, May 1, 1987, as amended at 62 FR 47575, Sept. 10, 1997]