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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         674,894
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,436,735
<ALLOWANCES>                                    75,000
<INVENTORY>                                  6,328,232
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,480,029
<PP&E>                                      94,140,754
<DEPRECIATION>                              23,819,484
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              83,249,629
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       18,911,619
<BONDS>                                     11,702,623
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,641,062
<OTHER-SE>                                  50,630,085
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                83,249,629
<SALES>                                     84,863,782
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            84,863,782
<CGS>                                       83,126,259
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               84,734,820
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,434,725
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,535,819
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,687,270)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    94,340
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,592,930)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,592,930)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.22)
        

</TABLE>
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Charles Ford

*Ernest J. Diette, Jr.,*assistant state’s attorney, for the appellee (state).

*Charles L. Flynn,*for the appellant (defendant).

Argued February 4

decided February 4, 1975

The plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the appeal from the Superior Court in New Haven County is granted unless the defendant complies with § 630A of the rules of practice on or before March 4,1975.
555 Airport Blvd., 5th Fl.

Burlingame, CA 94010

Direct Dial: (650) 762-7394

Direct Fax: (650) 648-0489

barbara.russell@virginamerica.com

June 22, 2012

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

Esta Rosenberg

Chief, U.S. Carrier Licensing Division

U.S. Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.

Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Application of Virgin America Inc. for Renewal of Exemptions (Dockets

OST-2010-0168, -0169, 0170)

Dear Ms. Rosenberg,

On June 14, 2012, Virgin America Inc. filed an Application for Renewal of Exemptions

in the above-referenced dockets. 

We have completed polling on this application and no carrier has objected to the grant of 

Virgin America’s Application. We respectfully request that the Department proceed to renew 

Virgin America’s exemption authorities as soon as possible. 

Respectfully submitted,

 Barbara Russell

 Associate General Counsel

Virgin America Inc.

555 Airport Blvd., Second Floor

Burlingame, CA 94010

(650) 762-7394 (phone)

(650) 762-7004 (fax)

barbara.russell@virginamerica.com 

cc: service list
* Local Rule 47.5.1 provides: "The publication of

opinions that merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-50463 Conference Calendar

__________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus LAURO RINCON, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-95-CV-141 - - - - - - - - - - December 20, 1995 Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Through his plea agreement, Lauro Rincon waived his right to challenge his sentence. See United States v. Wilkes , 20 F.3d 651, 653 (5th Cir. 1994). Rincon's challenge to his fine is not cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See United States v. Segler , 37 F.3d 1131, 1136-37 (5th Cir. 1994). AFFIRMED.
#### Joseph R. Wolfson et al., Respondents, v. Arnold A. Mandell et al., Appellants.

In an action to recover damages for willfully and maliciously inducing the breach of an alleged contract, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered October 17, 1963 on reargument, which: (a) denied their motion under rule 103 of the former Rules of Civil Practice to strike out the amended complaint on the ground that it is sham and frivolous, that it was served in bad faith and that it is in contravention of the opinion of this court on a prior appeal in this action (18 A D 2d 816) and of the opinion of the Appellate Division in the First Department on an appeal in a prior action between the parties (13 A D 2d 760, affd. 11 N Y 2d 704); and (b) denied defendants’ motion under rule 102 of the former Rules of Civil Practice to make paragraphs 1 through 12 of the said complaint more definite and certain, except that the motion was granted in part with respect to paragraph 5. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements; motion to strike out the amended complaint granted, and complaint struck out, with leave to plaintiffs, within 20 days after entry of the order hereon, to serve a second amended complaint consistent herewith. The present amended complaint is in contravention of the prior determinations by the Appellate Division in the First Department and by this court (13 A D 2d 760, affd. 11 N Y 2d 704, 18 A D 2d 816). By reason of these determinations, it follows: (1) that, under the October 3, 1958 agreement between plaintiffs and Lemos, the plaintiffs had no rights after April 1, 1960; (2) that under the April 1, 1960 contract, whether construed as a binding contract or as an “ at will ” arrangement the plaintiffs acquired no rights; and (3) that plaintiffs have no claims based on acts of defendants *792after April 1, 1960. Plaintiffs may replead a canse of action based only on acts of the defendants which occurred *prior to*April 1, 1960. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.
| 1.   | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended April 16, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the |
|----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial |
|----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                  |                           |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------------------------------|--------|
| Dated: May 28, 2010    | /s/ William L. Bridgford  |   |
|                                  | William L. Bridgford, Chairman |   |
|                                  | (Principal Executive Officer)  |   |
|                                  |                           |   |
### §8204. Limitations on assistance

#### (a) Amount

The total amount of payments that a person shall be entitled to receive under this chapter may not exceed $75,000, or an equivalent value in tree seedlings.

#### (b) Acres

The total quantity of acres planted to trees or tree seedlings for which a person shall be entitled to receive payments under this chapter may not exceed 500 acres.

#### (c) Regulations

The Secretary shall promulgate regulations—

(1) defining the term "person" for the purposes of this chapter, which shall conform, to the maximum extent practicable, to the regulations defining the term "person" promulgated under section 1308 of this title (before the amendment made by section 1603(a) 1 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008); and

(2) promulgating such regulations as the Secretary determines necessary to ensure a fair and reasonable application of the limitation established under this section.

(Pub. L. 107–171, title X, §10204, May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 491; Pub. L. 110–234, title I, §1603(g)(4), May 22, 2008, 122 Stat. 1011; Pub. L. 110–246, §4(a), title I, §1603(g)(4), June 18, 2008, 122 Stat. 1664, 1740; Pub. L. 113–79, title I, §1609(b)(1), Feb. 7, 2014, 128 Stat. 709.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 1308 of this title (before the amendment made by section 1603(a) of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008), referred to in subsec. (c)(1), means section 1308 of this title before the amendment by section 1603(a) of Pub. L. 110–246, which amended the definition of "covered commodity" in section 1308(a)(1). Section 1603(b) of Pub. L. 110–246 amended section 1308 by, among other things, adding subsec. (a)(4) which defined "person" and striking out subsec. (e) which related to issuance of regulations defining "person". The amendments by section 1603 of Pub. L. 110–246 to section 1308 were effective May 22, 2008.

#### Codification

Pub. L. 110–234 and Pub. L. 110–246 made identical amendments to this section. The amendments by Pub. L. 110–234 were repealed by section 4(a) of Pub. L. 110–246.

#### Amendments

2014—Subsec. (c)(1). Pub. L. 113–79 amended language inserted by Pub. L. 110–246, §1603(g)(4). See 2008 Amendment note below.

2008—Subsec. (c)(1). Pub. L. 110–246, §1603(g)(4), as amended by Pub. L. 113–79, §1609(b)(1), inserted "(before the amendment made by section 1603(a) of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008)" after "section 1308 of this title".

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

#### Effective Date of 2014 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 113–79 effective as if included in Pub. L. 110–246, see section 1609(b)(2) of Pub. L. 113–79, set out as a note under section 1471g of this title.

#### Effective Date of 2008 Amendment

Amendment of this section and repeal of Pub. L. 110–234 by Pub. L. 110–246 effective May 22, 2008, the date of enactment of Pub. L. 110–234, see section 4 of Pub. L. 110–246, set out as an Effective Date note under section 8701 of this title.

1 See References in Text note below.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FIRST
QUARTER ENDED JULY 31, 1997 SYNTHETIC BLOOD INTERNATIONAL, INC.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1997
<CASH>                                          15,877
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                37,302
<PP&E>                                         303,518
<DEPRECIATION>                                 179,291
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 268,170
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          764,789
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                       428,295
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (924,914)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   268,170
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   114
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               214,221
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 792
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (214,107)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (214,107)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.01)
        

</TABLE>
Argued and submitted September 30, 2003,

convictions on counts two, three, four, and five vacated and remanded for merger of convictions and for resentencing; otherwise affirmed April 7, 2004

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*DALE RICHARD RANDANT, *Appellant.*

CR98052; A111296

87 P3d 688

Andy Simrin, Senior Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was David E. Groom, Acting Executive Director, Office of Public Defense Services. Dale Richard Randant filed the supplemental brief *pro se.*

Kaye E. McDonald, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General.

Before Edmonds, Presiding Judge, and Wollheim, Judge,* and Leeson, Judge pro tempore.

PER CURIAM

*

 Wollheim, J., *vice*Schuman, J.

*669PER CURIAM

Defendant was convicted of one count of aggravated murder based on the crime having been committed in the course of committing first-degree kidnapping, one count of aggravated murder based on the crime having been committed in the course of committing second-degree kidnapping, one count of intentional murder, one count of kidnapping in the first degree, one count of kidnapping in the second degree, and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. All counts except the last involved the same victim and the same factual circumstances. Although defendant makes multiple assignments of error, the only issue that requires discussion involves the entry of the convictions.

The trial court had intended to enter convictions only on the first and last counts and to merge the remaining counts into the first conviction. However, it actually entered separate convictions on the remaining counts, merging them only for purposes of sentencing. Defendant assigns error to that action, and the state concedes that it was erroneous. We agree. *See State v. Cloutier,*286 Or 579, 596 P2d 1278 (1979); *State v. Torres,*182 Or App 156, 160, 48 P3d 170, *on recons,*184 Or 515, 59 P3d 47 (2002).

Convictions on counts two, three, four, and five vacated and remanded for merger of convictions and for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

                                              
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The Schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
Form 10-Q 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>                          AUG-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  635,777
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    776,870
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,533,061
<PP&E>                                       1,611,877
<DEPRECIATION>                                 822,975
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,773,203
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,271,607
<BONDS>                                        606,149
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         72
<COMMON>                                       502,013
<OTHER-SE>                                     336,961
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,773,203
<SALES>                                      2,254,451
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,283,846
<CGS>                                        2,148,743
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,164,675
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              17,109
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,389
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,088
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             17,333
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    17,333
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
#### CULLINAN, Respondent, v. SISTO et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 6, 1903.)

Action by Patrick W. Cullinan against Angela Sisto and others.

C. C. Nadal, for appellants. H. H. Kellogg, for respondent.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs, on the authority of Cullinan v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 84 App. Div. 296, 82 N. Y. Supp. 827.
1.302 Limitations. Agency acquisition regulations shall be limited to— ( a ) Those necessary to implement FAR policies and procedures within the agency; and
( b ) Additional policies, procedures, solicitation provisions, or contract clauses that supplement the FAR to satisfy the specific needs of the agency.
#### 1450.104-3 Special procedures for unusually hazardous or nuclear risks.

The CO shall submit the proposed Memorandum of Decision including the contractor's request for indemnification and the information required from the CO, to the SOL for review and approval. If the SOL approves the proposed Memorandum of Decision, it shall be submitted through the HCA, to the Director, PAM, for approval or disapproval by the Secretary.
Appeal No. 73-255.

#### Edward A. Sullivan, Jr. *et al. v.*Dorothy M. Spicer *et al.*

*Letts, Quinn & Licht, Richard A. Licht, Alan S. Flink,*for Edward A. Sullivan, Jr. *Gunning, LaFazia & Gnys, Inc., Richard T. Linn,*for defendants.

Petition for reargument is denied. The defendants based their petition for reargument on the ground that they had not waived the question as to whether or not the plaintiff’s appeal should be dismissed because of failure to file a transcript as required by Super. R. Civ. P. 75(b). Assuming that the defendants are correct, this issue examined and considered and found without merit.
**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 Escalade, Incorporated (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending July 14, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert J. Keller, 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 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.

| /s/   Robert J. Keller    |   |
|---------------------------|--------|
|                           |   |
| Robert   J. Keller        |   |
| Chief   Executive Officer |   |
| August   2, 2007          |   |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FIRST
QUARTER ENDED JULY 31, 1999 SYNTHETIC BLOOD INTERNATIONAL, INC.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1999
<CASH>                                          90,788
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               121,173
<PP&E>                                         307,483
<DEPRECIATION>                                 256,745
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 388,344
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          541,933
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       570,591
<OTHER-SE>                                   (768,277)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   388,344
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   741
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               216,206
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,892
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (220,357)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (220,357)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   ($0.004)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 ($0.004)


</TABLE>
# United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

No. 13-2269 MARLA PANOTO and ALAIN JUSOP WELLIAM RUNTUKAHU, Petitioners,

v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., United States Attorney General, Respondent.

ERRATA SHEET The opinion of this Court issued on October 22, 2014 is amended as follows: On page 3, delete footnote number 2. On page 9, renumber footnote number 3 as footnote number 2.
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 Energy Conversion Devices, Inc.
     (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2003, as
     filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
     "Report"), I, Stanford R. Ovshinsky, Chief Executive Officer of the
     Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
     Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based on 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.


     November 26, 2003


      /s/ Stanford R. Ovshinsky
     ------------------------------
     Chief Executive Officer
#### 1316.405 Cost-reimbursement incentive contracts.