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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-25-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-26-2000
<CASH>                                             110
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   96,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                     9,286
<INVENTORY>                                      2,903
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                63,503
<PP&E>                                          13,460
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,877
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 161,738
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,084
<BONDS>                                         84,221
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      25,868
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   161,738
<SALES>                                         31,560
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,247
<CGS>                                           11,297
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   30,606
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   532
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,570
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,133
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (464)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (20)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (444)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (444)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F1>
<FN>
<F1>The Company does not report EPS as there is no public market for its
equity. The Company does have publicly owned debt.
</FN>


</TABLE>
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 Quarterly Report of First Health Group Corp. (the
 "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004, as filed with
 the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
 I, William R. McManaman, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby
 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.


 /s/ William R. McManaman

 William R. McManaman
 Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
 August 6, 2004
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17D0159. KEVIN JAMES v. MELANIE JAMES.

Kevin James filed this application for discretionary appeal from an order

denying his motion to recuse the trial judge from post-divorce contempt and

modification proceedings.

1

 We, however, lack jurisdiction.

An order denying a motion to recuse is interlocutory. Murphy v. Murphy, 322

Ga. App. 829, 830 (747 SE2d 21) (2013). In order to appeal such an order, an

applicantmust complywith the interlocutory appeal procedure and obtain a certificate

of immediate review. OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). Alt h o u g h Ke v i n J ame s fil ed a

discretionary application, “[t]he discretionary appeal statute does not excuse a party

seeking appellate review of an interlocutory order fromcomplying with the additional

requirements of OCGA § 5-6-34 (b).” Bailey v. Bailey, 266 Ga. 832, 833 (471 SE2d

213) (1996). Kevin James’sfailure to follow the proper appellate procedure deprives

us of jurisdiction to consider this application.

2 See Warringer v. Warringer, 204 Ga.

App. 86, 86 (418 SE2d 446) (1992). Accordingly, his application is hereby

DISMISSED.

1 Kevin James originally filed his application in the Georgia Supreme Court,

which transferred the matter to this Court. See Case No. S17D0316 (decided October

12, 2016).

2 Orders denying motions to recuse may be reviewed after the entry of final

judgment, as part of the appeal from final judgment. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (d);

Murphy, supra at 830-832. Here, Kevin James’s application was predicated on the

trial court’s order denying his recusal motion, and it appears the case remained

pending when he filed his application. See Warringer, supra at 86. 

November 14, 2016
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.

11/14/2016
**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 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Southwall Technologies Inc. (the Company), for the quarter ended September 26, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas G. Hood, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby 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. 
 
 November 8, 2004
By:
/s/ Thomas G. HoodThomas G. Hood**
*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 the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
 
 In accordance with Item 601 of Regulation S-K, this certification is being furnished as Exhibit 32.1 to the Companys quarterly report and shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that section, nor shall it be deemed incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act, except as expressly set forth by specific reference in such a filing.
IV 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 92

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Government Reform 

in the One Hundred Ninth Congress. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 15, 2005

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia submitted the following resolution; which was 

referred to the Committee on House Administration 

RESOLUTION

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on 

Government Reform in the One Hundred Ninth Congress.

1 Resolved,

2 SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES. 

3 For the expenses of the Committee on Government 

4 Reform (hereafter in this resolution referred to as the 

5 ‘‘Committee’’), including the expenses of all staff salaries, 

6 there shall be paid, out of the applicable accounts of the 

7 House of Representatives for committee salaries and ex8 penses, not more than $21,349,000 for the One Hundred 

9 Ninth Congress. 
2

•HRES 92 IH 

1 SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS. 

2 Of the amount specified in section 1—

3 (1) not more than $10,624,500 shall be avail4 able for expenses incurred during the period begin5 ning at noon on January 3, 2005, and ending imme6 diately before noon on January 3, 2006; and 

7 (2) not more than $10,724,500 shall be avail8 able for expenses incurred during the period begin9 ning at noon on January 3, 2006, and ending imme10 diately before noon on January 3, 2007. 

11 SEC. 3. VOUCHERS. 

12 Payments under this resolution shall be made on 

13 vouchers authorized by the Committee, signed by the 

14 Chairman of the Committee, and approved in the manner 

15 directed by the Committee on House Administration. 

16 SEC. 4. REGULATIONS. 

17 Amounts made available under this resolution shall 

18 be expended in accordance with regulations prescribed by 

19 the Committee on House Administration.

Æ
§ 1303.35 Burden of proof. ( a ) At any hearing regarding the determination or adjustment of an aggregate production quota, each interested person participating in the hearing shall have the burden of proving any propositions of fact or law asserted by him in the hearing.
( b ) At any hearing regarding the issuance, adjustment, suspension, or denial of a procurement or individual manufacturing quota, the Administration shall have the burden of proving that the requirements of this part for such issuance, adjustment, suspension, or denial are satisfied.
[36 FR 7786, Apr. 24, 1971, as amended at 37 FR 15920, Aug. 8, 1972. Redesignated at 38 FR 26609, Sept. 24, 1973, as amended at 62 FR 13958, Mar. 24, 1997]
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 1**  **3 -**  **1048**

GEORGE ALEXANDER YARID ,
P laintiff

- Appell ant ,

v.

LAYTON HARMAN; ROBERT ROONEY; JOHN LUCAS; AL HORFORD; ED DAVIS; BRODIE BRUCE; SCOTT HATRNELL; KURT DONALDSON; PAUL WRIGHT; GORDAN FREEMAN; MIKE DANNER , Defendant s - Appell ees .

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. John A. Gibney, Jr. , District Judge. ( 3:12

- cv - 00237

- JRS )

Submitted : April 25, 2013 Decided: April 29, 2013

Before AGEE and WYNN , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismiss ed by un published per curiam opinion

.

George Alexander Yarid , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: George Alexander Yarid appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006). This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), an d certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541, 545

– 47 (1949). B ecause the district court found Yarid’s particularized complaint too vague and conclusory to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, but allowed him to amplify the factual and legal bases on which his claims rest and refile his complaint, we conclude that the district court’s order is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory

or collateral order. Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local
Union 392 , 10 F.3d 1064, 1066

– 67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
================================================================================

[PORTIONS OF THIS EXHIBIT HAVE BEEN REDACTED PURSUANT TO A REQUEST FOR
CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT AND FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION.]

                                  APPENDIX A-7

                                    PRODUCTS

Product Name:     CONDIMENT CADDY, Part # RG-99-2

Product Description: Kitchen Appliance that holds Condiments

Projected Units Sold next 24 months: XXXXXX

Manufacturer:     CirTran-Asia

Sub-Manufacturer: Jion Loen Enterprise Co., Ltd.
                  Civil Industries Ltd.
                  Zhejiang Hengtai Machinery Manufacturing Co., Ltd.

Marketing Partner Contact Info:     EMSON PRODUCTS, INC.

Current Sale Price: $XXXXXX USD - CIRTRAN-ASIA

Current Cost to Manufacturer:       $XXXXXX USD

Total Tooling/Development Costs:    $20,000 USD

Gross Profit Margin Per Unit - $0.50

CirTran-Asia               $ 0.10 USD
Charles Ho                 $ 0.40 USD

CONDIMENT CADDY Stock Option Schedule

Upon full execution of this Agreement, Cirtran's parent CirTran Corporation will
issue the following options to purchase restricted common stock:

                    Charles Ho                250,000 shares


These initial options will vest and be exercisable only after Cirtran has sold
200,000 CONDIMENT CADDY units. The options will be exercisable at $.06 per share
after vesting. The options will expire and will no longer be exercisable on the
date one year after the date hereof.

In addition, for each whole multiple of 100,000 CONDIMENT CADDY units sold by
Cirtran during the first 24 months of this Agreement in excess of the initial
200,000 units, CirTran Corporation will grant Charles Ho an option to purchase
100,000 shares. Each such additional option will be exercisable for a period of
12 months at an exercise price equal to the fair market value of CirTran
Corporation stock on the date of grant (i.e. the mean between the high bid and
low asked prices for the stock for the date of determination).

As a condition to grant of the options, each option holder will be required to
make standard investment representations to CirTran Corporation.



[XXXXX - REDACTED PURSUANT TO REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT FILED WITH THE
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION.]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1783

FREDERICK E. MELVIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus THE KELLY SPRINGFIELD TIRE CORPORATION, Defendant - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-99-599-5-BO) Submitted: October 12, 2000 Decided: October 18, 2000 Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frederick E. Melvin, Appellant Pro Se. Richard M. Wiggins, MCCOY, WEAVER, WIGGINS, CLEVELAND & RAPER, Fayetteville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Frederick E. Melvin appeals the district court’s order granting the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on his employmentdiscrimination complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Melvin v. Kelly Springfield Tire Corp. , No. CA-99-599-5-BO (E.D.N.C. May 5, 2000). 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.

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 685 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 685

   Requesting the President and directing the Secretary of State and 
 Secretary of Defense provide to the House of Representatives certain 
  documents in their possession relating to any entity with which the 
 United States has contracted for public relations purposes concerning 
                                 Iraq.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 15, 2006

Mr. Kucinich submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Requesting the President and directing the Secretary of State and 
 Secretary of Defense provide to the House of Representatives certain 
  documents in their possession relating to any entity with which the 
 United States has contracted for public relations purposes concerning 
                                 Iraq.

    Resolved, That the President is requested and the Secretary of 
State and Secretary of Defense are directed to provide to the House of 
Representatives, not later than 14 days after the date of adoption of 
this resolution, all documents in the possession of the President, the 
Secretary of State, or the Secretary of Defense, respectively, relating 
to any entity (including the Rendon Group and the Lincoln Group) with 
which the United States has entered into a contract for public 
relations purposes concerning Iraq insofar as such documents relate to 
such contract, including--
            (1) any such document relating to communications between 
        United States Government officials and any such entity relating 
        to such contract, including any notes and minutes from 
        meetings, memos, telephone and electronic mail records, logs 
        and calendars, and records of discussions;
            (2) any such document comprising the proposed or realized 
        public relations work by any such entity for the United States 
        pursuant to such contract, including any strategy proposal, 
        press release, news article and any proposal for a news 
        article, biography or other summary of any individual, 
        leaflets, pamphlets, and memos; and
            (3) any such document relating to the business relationship 
        arising from such contract between the United States and any 
        such entity, including any request for proposals leading to the 
        contract with such entity and any billing statement.
                                 <all>
```
Supplemental Agreement



 Exhibit 10.2 
 Supplemental Agreement No. 3 
 to Managing Director Service Contract 
 Between 
 Xerium Germany Holding GmbH (the “Company”) 
 and 
 Mr. Josef Mayer (the “Managing Director”) 
 it is agreed as follows: 
  

	1.	Effective July 26, 2006, the Managing Director will take over the position of Executive Vice President - Business Development. He shall continue to report to the CEO of Xerium
Technologies, Inc., and the appointment as managing director (“Geschäftsführer”) of the Company shall be maintained, without, however, limiting the right of the Company’s shareholder to revoke such appointment as managing
director. 

  

	2.	All other rights and obligations of either Party under the existing Managing Director Service Contract in the version as last amended by Transfer Agreement of January 2, 2005,
and Amendment Agreement of May 19, 2005 shall remain unaffected. 

 Reutlingen, Germany 
 July 26, 2006 
  

			
	 /s/ Thomas Gutierrez
  
	 	 /s/ Josef Mayer
  

	 For the Company:
 Thomas Gutierrez as Director of
 Xerium Technologies Limited, the
 sole shareholder of the Company
	 	 Josef Mayer
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 September 30, 2013

d0923

Order 

Clerk

September 30, 2013

147155 & (59)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 147155

COA: 307526

Oakland CC: 2011-237516-FC

BRIAN DEVON WELLONS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 16, 2013 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to 

remand is DENIED.
#### EARL WILDAY AND FRANK THORWESTER, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. JOSEPH PANAS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Argued October 19, 1938

Decided January 13, 1939.

*32For the appellant, *Ward & McGinnis.*

For the respondents, *George K. Slingerland*(by *Maurice Bernstein).*

*33Per Curiam.

The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons set forth in the opinion delivered *per curiam*by the Supreme Court.

*For affirmance*— Case, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Perskie, Porter, PIeteield, Dear, Wells, WolesKeil, Raeeerty, Walker, JJ. 12.

*For reversal*— None.
§ 75.24 Retention of records. ( a ) The applicant, licensee, certificate holder, or possessor of nuclear material outside facilities shall retain as a record any request made pursuant to §§ 75.13(b)(1), 75.13(b)(4), and 75.21 and documents related to that request, which are either prepared or received by that entity, until the NRC terminates the license or certificate, or until the entity no longer possesses nuclear material, whichever occurs later. When records required by these sections are superseded, these records must be retained for 3 years after each change is made.
( b ) The applicant, licensee, certificate holder, or possessor of nuclear material outside facilities shall retain the records referred to in §§ 75.22 and 75.23 for at least 5 years.
[83 FR 19612, May 4, 2018]
IV 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 984 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the use of continuing resolutions to fund defense-related activities erodes military readiness and poses an unacceptable risk to the national security of the 

United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 6, 2018 

Mr. TAYLOR submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Appropriations 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that 

the use of continuing resolutions to fund defense-related 

activities erodes military readiness and poses an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United 

States. 

Whereas the United States faces an extraordinarily high 

number of security threats for which the Armed Forces 

must be prepared; 

Whereas the impacts of a continuing resolution on Department of Defense training begin immediately and can result in unrecoverable lost training days which ultimately 

reduce the overall effectiveness of subsequent training 

evolutions; 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 984 IH 

Whereas the effects of a continuing resolution on military 

readiness and maintenance grow exponentially over time 

and erode restoration initiatives that are vital to the capability and lethality of the force in the event of conflict 

with major-power adversaries; 

Whereas continuing resolutions adversely affect Department 

of Defense personnel by disrupting hiring and recruitment programs resulting in critical vacancies, delays in 

workforce development, and unnecessary burdens on military members and their families; and 

Whereas the negative effects of continuing resolutions extend 

to Department of Defense contracting efforts, leading to 

mandatory contract renegotiations, increased demands 

and burdens on the acquisition workforce, schedule 

delays, increased costs, and reduce the Federal Government’s reliability among vendors: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) finds that continuing resolutions erode mili3 tary readiness and pose an unacceptable risk to the 

4 national security of the United States; and 

5 (2) affirms that Congress should pass all de6 fense-related appropriations for a fiscal year prior to 

7 the beginning of such fiscal year. 

Æ 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS