alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
##### Table of Contents



United StatesSecurities and Exchange Commission
 Washington, D.C. 20549
 
 Form 10-Q/A
 Amendment No. 1
 QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF
THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 For the Quarterly Period Ended August 4, 2007
 Commission File No. 1-6695
 
 JO-ANN STORES, INC.
  Ohio
    
    34-0720629(State or other jurisdiction of
    
    (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)incorporation or organization)
 5555 Darrow Road, Hudson, Ohio
    
    44236(Address of principal executive offices)
    
    (Zip Code)
 (330) 656-2600
 þ o
  Large accelerated filer o
    
    Accelerated filer þ
    
    Non-accelerated filer o
 o þ




---



TABLE OF CONTENTS  PART II. OTHER INFORMATIONItem 6. ExhibitsSIGNATURESEX-31.1EX-31.2EX-32.1    Table of Contents  Explanatory Note
   
 PART II. OTHER INFORMATION
 
 Item 6. Exhibits
 Exhibits
 No.
    
    Exhibit Description31.1
    
    Section 302 Certification By Chief Executive Officer31.2
    
    Section 302 Certification By Chief Financial Officer32.1
    
    Section 906 Certification of Principal Executive Officer and
Principal Financial Officer
 1




---



##### Table of Contents



SIGNATURES
  JO-ANN STORES, INC.DATE: September 21, 2007
    /s/ Darrell WebbDarrell Webb,President and Chief Executive Officer /s/ James KerrJames Kerr,Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer 2
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-20411

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Justin Levar Taylor, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:22-CR-589-1

______________________________

Before Jolly, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Justin Levar Taylor appeals his guilty plea conviction and sentence for 

possession of a firearm by a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He 

argues that § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment in light of New York 

State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), and exceeds the power 

of Congress under the Commerce Clause. As Taylor concedes, because he 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 8, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-20411 Document: 42-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/08/2024
did not raise his issues in the district court, review is for plain error only. See

United States v. Howard, 766 F.3d 414, 419 (5th Cir. 2014). 

The Government has filed an opposed motion for summary 

affirmance or, in the alternative, for an extension of time to file its brief. As 

the Government argues, Taylor’s unpreserved, Bruen-based argument is 

foreclosed by our opinion in United States v. Jones, 88 F.4th 571, 573-74 (5th 

Cir. 2023), cert. denied, 2024 WL 1143799 (U.S. March 18, 2024) (No. 23-

6769). In Jones, 88 F.4th at 573-74, we rejected a similar plain-error challenge

to the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) under the Second Amendment,

reasoning that any error was not clear or obvious due to the lack of binding 

precedent and the divergent decisions reached by other circuit courts. 

Therefore, the Government “is clearly right as a matter of law so that there 

can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case,” and summary 

judgment is appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 

1162 (5th Cir. 1969). 

Further, as Taylor acknowledges, his challenge to the 

constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) under the Commerce Clause is foreclosed. 

See United States v. Alcantar, 733 F.3d 143, 145-56 (5th Cir. 2013); United 

States v. Perryman, 965 F.3d 424, 426 (5th Cir. 2020). Accordingly, summary 

affirmance is also warranted on this issue.

For the foregoing reasons, the motion for summary affirmance is 

GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The 

Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time is DENIED.

Case: 23-20411 Document: 42-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/08/2024
<TABLE> <S> <C>

                                                                 

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 27
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS OF BRUNO'S, INC. FOR THE QUARTER ENDED NOVEMBER 1, 1997, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-02-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-01-1997
<CASH>                                           3,167
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,992
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    210,607
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               245,870
<PP&E>                                         785,253
<DEPRECIATION>                                 332,921
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 780,808
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          240,183
<BONDS>                                        400,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           255
<OTHER-SE>                                    (423,495)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   780,808
<SALES>                                      1,940,751
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,940,751
<CGS>                                        1,512,369
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,512,369
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               449,247
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              65,131
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (85,996)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,792
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (93,788)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (93,788)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (3.70)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (3.70)
        

</TABLE>
#### 1352.233-71 GAO and Court of Federal Claims protests.

As prescribed in 48 CFR 1333.104-70(a), insert the following provision:

# GAO and Court of Federal Claims Protests (APR 2010)

(a) A protest may be filed with either the Government Accountability Office (GAO) or the Court of Federal Claims unless an agency protest has been filed.

(b) A complete copy of all GAO or Court of Federal Claims protests, including all attachments, shall be served upon (i) the Contracting Officer, and (ii) the Contract Law Division of the Office of the General Counsel, within one day of filing a protest with either GAO or the Court of Federal Claims.

(c) Service upon the Contract Law Division shall be made as follows: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of the General Counsel, Chief, Contract Law Division, Room 5893, Herbert C. Hoover Building, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. FAX: (202) 482-5858.

(End of clause)

[75 FR 10570, Mar. 8, 2010; 75 FR 14496, Mar. 26, 2010]
Exhibit
      32.1





**CERTIFICATIONS
      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 Swiss Medica, Inc. (the "Company") on
      Form
      10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Raghunath Kilambi,
      Chief Executive 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 and 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.




June
      12,
      2007


By:
            /s/
                Raghunath KilambiRaghunath
                Kilambi
              Chief
                Executive Officer




A
      SIGNED
      ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906, OR OTHER DOCUMENT
      AUTHENTICATING, ACKNOWLEDGING, OR OTHERWISE ADOPTING THE SIGNATURE THAT APPEARS
      IN TYPED FORM WITHIN THE ELECTRONIC VERSION OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED
      BY SECTION 906, HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO SWISS MEDICA, INC. AND WILL BE RETAINED
      BY
      SWISS MEDICA, INC. AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
      OR
      ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before HOLIFIELD, STEWART, and HACKEL Appellate Military Judges

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES Appellee

v. Caden E. RHOADS Private First Class (E

- 2), U.S. Marine Corps Appellant
No. 202100247

_________________________ Decided: 6 December 2021 Appeal from the United States Navy

- Marine Corps Trial Judiciary Military Judge:

Glen R. Hines Sentence adjudged 8 July 2021 by a special court

- martial convened at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune , North Carolina, consisting of a military judge sitting alone. Sentence in the Entry of Judgment : reduction to E

- 1, confinement for three months , and a bad

- conduct discharge

. For Appellant: Captain Thomas P. Belsky, JAGC, US N

_________________________United States v. Rhoads , NMCCA No. 202100247 Opinion of the Court

2 This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2 (a)

.

_________________________ PER CURIAM : After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of error, we have determined that the findings and sentence are correct in law and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to Appellant’s substantial rights occurred. 1 T he findings and sentence are AFFIRMED

.

FOR THE COURT:

RODGER A. DREW, JR. Clerk of Court

1 Articles 59 & 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U .S.C. §§ 859, 866.
|   | **EXHIBIT 31.1** |
|--------|------------------|

 

Certifications

 

I, Jim Turek, Chief Executive Officer certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report for years ended 2003 AND 2004 on Form 10-KSB of Plasticon International, Inc.

2. Based on my knowledge, the report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report; 

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officers and I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(c) and 15d-(e)) for the small business issuer and have:

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidates subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures, and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal period that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the small business issuer's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls (all of which do not apply); and

 

 

 

 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal controls, (all of which do not apply); and

 

Date: May 4, 2006

 

/s/ Jim Turek, President & CEO

Jim Turek
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED OC TOBER 10, 2019

NO. 03

- 17

- 00748

- CR

Travis Marpoe, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 450TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JU STIC ES GOODWIN AND SMITH

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE SMITH

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the trial court. Having reviewed

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the

trial court’s judgment of conviction

. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of

conviction

. B eca use appellant is indigent and u nable to pay costs, no adjudica t i on of costs

is made.
Tuesday 1st 

 October, 2002. 

Diation Lamonte Langhorne, s/k/a 

 Diatiaion Langhorne, Appellant, 

 against Record No. 2124-99-2 

 Circuit Court No. 95F59 

Commonwealth of Virginia, Appellee. 

Upon Remand from the Supreme Court of Virginia 

 In accordance with the order of the Supreme Court of 

Virginia entered on March 22, 2002, the opinion previously rendered 

by this Court on March 6, 2001 is withdrawn, the mandate entered on 

that date is vacated and final judgment is entered reinstating the 

conviction of the appellant. 

 This order shall be published and certified to the trial 

court. 

 A Copy, 

 Teste: 

 Cynthia L. McCoy, Clerk 

 By: 

 Deputy Clerk 
Appellee's Costs:

Attorney's fee: $ 50.00

Appellee's brief: $ 24.20

Teste:

Cynthia L. McCoy, Clerk

By:

Deputy Clerk

 -2- 
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Diation Lamonte Langhorne, s/k/a

 Diatiaion Langhorne, Appellant,

 against Record No. 2124-99-2

Circuit Court No. 95F59

Commonwealth of Virginia, Appellee.

ITEMIZED STATEMENT OF COSTS

I, Cynthia L. McCoy, clerk of the Court of Appeals of Virginia, do hereby certify that the

appellee shall recover from the appellant costs in this case as follows:

Attorney's fee: $ 50.00

 (Code § 17.1-624)

Appellee's brief: $ 24.20

 (Code § 17.1-605)

Given under my hand this 1st day of October, 2002.

Cynthia L. McCoy, Clerk

By:

Deputy Clerk

 -3-
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Nels G. Holmquist

*John W. Kline,*special public defender, on the motion.

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

Argued November 5

decided November 5, 1974

The motion by John W. Kline to withdraw his appearance on behalf of the defendant in the appeal from the Superior Court in New Haven County is granted.
##### 



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 Current Report on Form 10-Q of Claires Stores,
Inc. (the Company) for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Bonnie Schaefer, Acting Co-Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
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 results of operations of the Company. /s/ E. Bonnie SchaeferE. Bonnie SchaeferCo-Chief Executive OfficerSeptember 2, 2004
 25
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed July 26, 2023.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-1168

Lower Tribunal No. 19-25728

________________

Maximo Perez, et al.,

Appellants,

vs.

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, etc.,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Carlos 

Lopez, Judge.

Dennis A. Donet, P.A., and Dennis A. Donet, for appellants.

McGlinchey Stafford, and William L. Grimsley and Kimberly Held Israel 

(Jacksonville), for appellee.

Before LOGUE, C.J., and HENDON and LOBREE, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. Bradshaw-Jackson v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 354 So. 3d 632 

(Fla. 3d DCA 2023).
UNPUBLISHED

FILED: October 15, 2019

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

___________________

No. 18

- 2488

(8:17

- cv

- 01596

- PJM)

___________________

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; STATE OF MARYLAND

Plaintiffs

- Appellees

v.

DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, in his official

capacity and in his individual capacity

Defendant

- Appellant

------------------------------

SCHOLAR SETH B ARRETT TILLMAN; JUDICIAL EDUCATION PROJECT

Amici Supporting Appellant

FORMER GOVERNMENT ETHICS OFFICERS; DON FOX; MARILYN

GLYNN; KAREN KUCIK; LAWRENCE D. REYNOLDS; AMY COMSTOCK

RICK; TRIP ROTHSCHILD; RICHARD M. THOMAS; HARVEY WILCOX;

LESLIE WILCOX

Amici Supporting Appellees

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, AND FEDERAL

COURTS SCHOLARS

Amicus Supporting Rehearing Petition___________________

O R D E R

___________________

A majority of judges in regular active service and not disqualified having

voted in a requested poll of the court to grant the petition for rehearing en banc

,

IT IS ORDERED that rehearing en banc is granted.

The parties and any amici curiae shall file 15 additional paper copies of their

briefs and appendices previously filed in this case within 10 days.

This case is scheduled for oral argument on Thursday, December 12, 2019, in

Richmond, Virginia.

For the Court

/s/ Patric ia S. Connor, Clerk
§ 865.125 Report requirement. Semi-annual reports will be submitted by the 20th day of April and October for the preceding 6-month reporting period (1 October through 31 March and 1 April through 30 September). The reporting period will be inclusive from the first through the last days of each reporting period. The report will contain four parts: ( a ) Part 1—Regular Cases are all those that are not included in part 2 below.
( b ) Part 2—Other cases include the following: ( 1 ) Reconsideration of President Ford's memorandum of 19 January 1977.
( 2 ) Special Discharge Review Program cases.
( 3 ) Statutes of Limitation Cases—those heard under Pub. L. 95-126 by waiver of 10 U.S.C. 1553.
( c ) Part 3—Total—combine parts 1 and 2.
( d ) Part 4—Cases outstanding include all those eligible cases in which a DD Form 293 has been received but has not been heard by the Discharge Review Board as the reporting date for this report. Reports will be prepared by the Air Force Discharge Review Board and submitted to the Army Discharge Review Board (executive agent for DRB matters).
Addendum to the 

TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT: 

PROPOSED REGULATION FOR IN-USE ON-ROAD DIESEL VEHICLES 

(ARB, October 2008) 

The following references are added to the chapters and appendices in the Technical 

Support Document: Proposed Regulation for In-Use On-Road Diesel Vehicles: 

Chapter XVI. RATIONALE FOR REGULATORY PROVISIONS AND CHANGES TO 

OTHER REGULATIONS 

In section J, School Buses, general concepts regarding children’s 

exposure to diesel emissions from school buses were discusses but the 

reference was omitted and is added below: 

Berhrentz, 2005. Berhrentz, E., Sabin, L., Winer, A., Fritz, D., Pankratz, 

D., Colume, S. and S. Fruin, 2005, Relative Importance of School BusRelated Microenvironments to Children’s Pollutant Exposure. Journal of 

Air & Waste Management Association., p. 1418 – 1430. 

Chapter XIII. COST SUMMARY AND METHODOLOGY and 

Chapter XIV. ECONOMIC IMPACTS and 

Appendix J. COST AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY 

The terms “cost model” and “ARB On-Road Compliance Model” were 

used in numerous places throughout Chapter XIII and Chapter XIV. The 

term is explained in detail in Appendix J, but the model was not 

referenced. The following reference needs to be added to each chapter: 

ARB Model, 2008. On-Road Capital Cost Model, Air Resources Board 

www.arb.ca.gov/dieseltruck. 

Chapter XIII. COST SUMMARY AND METHODOLOGY 

Section B. 2. a) discussed the data on vehicle prices that were 

downloaded from www.truckpaper.com. The reference,

Truckpaper.com, was discussed, however, the proper citation was not 

included in the paragraph or in the list of references. The proper 

reference is the following: 

Truckpaper.com, 2008b. www.truckpaper.com 

 
Page 2

Chapter XIV. ECONOMIC IMPACTS 

In Section C. 1. e), references to the 2008 Land Line Reader Survey 

were made, but not cited. The reference below was omitted and is being 

added: 

Land Line, 2008. 2008 Land Line Reader Survey, Owner-Operator 

Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA), February 2008, 

www.ooida.com 

Chapter XIII. COST SUMMARY AND METHODOLOGY 

In Section B. 2. a), references to the National Automobile Dealers 

Association were made, but the reference was omitted and is being 

added. 

NADA, 2008. NADA Guides, Vehicle Pricing & InformationTM, 

www.nada.org 

Appendix J. COST AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY 

Figure 13 in Chapter A., section7, was created using maintenance costs 

from an individual fleet requesting confidentiality but the reference was 

omitted and is being added below: 

Operating Cost, 2008. Truck Maintenance and Repair Costs from 

unnamed source. 

Appendix J. COST AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY 

Table 20 and Table 21 were created using individual body transfer costs 

obtained through personal conversations with several people but the 

reference was omitted and is being added. 

Body Transfer Cost, 2008. Personal communications.