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

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheets and consolidated statements of income from the
September 30, 1997 Form 10-Q Report and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       6,286,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,676,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,962,000
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             139,907,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       17,619,000
<BONDS>                                      9,162,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       318,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  85,975,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               139,907,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,035,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,623,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,087,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             696,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,629,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   706,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            923,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   923,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .09
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18. U.S.C. SECTION1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the QuarterlyReport of Parkway Properties, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q forthe period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Steven G. Rogers,Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, asadopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to myknowledge:

(1)       The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

(2)       The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

|  | /s/ Steven G. Rogers                            |
|--|-------------------------------------------------|
|  | Steven G. Rogers (*)                            |
|  | President, Chief Executive Officer and Director |
|  | August 7, 2007                                  |

 

 

 

 

*A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to ParkwayProperties, Inc. and will be retained by the Company and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
§ 20.903 Rule 903. The decision. ( a ) *Decisions based on entire record.* The appellant will not be presumed to be in agreement with any statement of fact contained in a Statement of the Case to which no exception is taken. Decisions of the Board are based on a review of the entire record. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7104(a), 7105(d)(4))
( b ) *Content.* The decision of the Board will be in writing and will set forth specifically the issue or issues under appellate consideration. Except with respect to issues remanded to the agency of original jurisdiction for further development of the case and appeals which are dismissed because the issue has been resolved by administrative action or because an appellant seeking nonmonetary benefits has died while the appeal was pending, the decision will also include findings of fact and conclusions of law on all material issues of fact and law presented on the record, the reasons or bases for those findings and conclusions, and an order granting or denying the benefit or benefits sought on appeal or dismissing the appeal.
( c ) A decision by a panel of Members will be by a majority vote of the panel Members.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7104(d) (2016))
[57 FR 4104, Feb. 3, 1992, as amended at 61 FR 20449, May 7, 1996. Redesignated at 84 FR 177, Jan. 18, 2019, as amended at 84 FR 4337, Feb. 15, 2019]
Exhibit 32.1

                           CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of QMed, Inc. (the "Company"),
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended May 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Michael W. Cox, Chief Executive Officer
of the Company and William T. Schmitt, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, respectively, do each hereby certify, pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350), that to his 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 W. Cox
----------------------------
Michael W. Cox
Chief Executive Officer
July 5, 2006



/s/ William T. Schmitt, Jr.
----------------------------
William T. Schmitt, Jr.
Chief Financial Officer
July 5, 2006

[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to QMed, Inc. and will be retained by QMed Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2255 

To amend the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program 

Act of 2000 to extend and increase the authority for the ombudsman 

under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 9, 2007 

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico (for himself, Mr. UDALL of Colorado, Ms. 

SLAUGHTER, Mr. WAMP, Mr. WHITFIELD, and Mr. HASTINGS of Washington) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Education and 

Labor, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 

each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 to extend and increase 

the authority for the ombudsman under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘EEOICPA Ombuds5 man Extension and Enhancement Act of 2007’’. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•HR 2255 IH

1 SEC. 2. INCREASED AUTHORITY FOR OMBUDSMAN UNDER 

2 ENERGY EMPLOYEES OCCUPATIONAL ILL3 NESS COMPENSATION PROGRAM. 

4 Section 3686 of the Energy Employees Occupational 

5 Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 

6 7385s–15) is amended— 

7 (1) by amending subsection (c) to read as fol8 lows: 

9 ‘‘(c) DUTIES.—The duties of the Office shall be as 

10 follows: 

11 ‘‘(1) To assist individuals in making claims 

12 under this title. 

13 ‘‘(2) To provide information on the benefits 

14 available under this title and on the requirements 

15 and procedures applicable to the provision of such 

16 benefits. 

17 ‘‘(3) To act as an advocate under this title in 

18 appropriate instances, as determined by the Om19 budsman. 

20 ‘‘(4) To make recommendations to the Sec21 retary regarding the location of centers (to be known 

22 as ‘resource centers’) for the acceptance and devel23 opment of claims for benefits under this title. 

24 ‘‘(5) To carry out such other duties as the Sec25 retary shall specify.’’; 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

3 

•HR 2255 IH

1 (2) in subsection (e)(2), by adding at the end 

2 the following new subparagraph: 

3 ‘‘(C) Proposed changes in the administra4 tive practices of the Department of Labor to 

5 mitigate difficulties identified under subpara6 graph (B) and potential legislative changes 

7 which may be appropriate to mitigate such dif8 ficulties.’’; and 

9 (3) by striking subsection (g) (establishing a 

10 sunset date) and inserting the following: 

11 ‘‘(g) CONTRACT AUTHORITY.—The Ombudsman 

12 shall have authority to hire or contract for any supplies 

13 or services including the services of individuals with exper14 tise in relevant disciplines, including health physics, medi15 cine, industrial hygiene, and toxicology, as the Ombuds16 man may from time to time consider appropriate.’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
GreenbergTraurig

Dane McKaughan

fel 5L2.32O.72OO

Fax 512,320.72LO

mcka ug ha nd @gtlaw. co m

March 27,2015

Jeffrey D. Kyle, Clerk

Court of Appeals - Third District of Texas

Price Daniel Sr. Building

209 West l4th Street, Room 101

Austin, Texas 18701

Re Court of Appeals Number: 03-14-00302-CV

Trial Court Case Number: D-l-GN-12-001695

Style: The Railroad Commission of Texas; CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp., d/b/a

CenterPoint Energt Entex; and CenterPoint Energy Texas Gas v. Gulf Coast Coalition of

Cities

Dear Mr. Kyle

I hereby notify the Court that I am in receipt of the Court's March 24,2015 notif,rcation

that the above cause has been set for submission and oral argument on May 20,2015 at 1:30 p.m.

I intend to argue this case before the Court on behalf of CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp.,

dlblaCenterPoint Energy Entex; and CenterPoint Energy Texas Gas.

S

Dane

DM/cd

AUS 536372378v1

GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP I ATTORNEYS AT LAW T WWW.GTLAW.COM

300 West 6th Street r Suite 2050 r Austin, fX78701 r Tel 512.320.7200 r Fax 512.320.7210

ACCEPTED

03-14-00302-CV

4677781

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

3/27/2015 3:30:33 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 3/27/2015 3:30:33 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
§ 21.142 Adult basic education. ( a ) *Definition.* The term *adult basic education* means an instructional program for the undereducated adult planned around those basic and specific skills most needed to help him or her to function adequately in society.
( b ) *Purposes.* The purposes of providing adult basic education are to: ( 1 ) Upgrade a veteran's basic educational skills;
( 2 ) Provide refresher training; or
( 3 ) Remedy deficiencies which prevent the veteran from undertaking a course of education or vocational training.
( c ) *Periods during which basic adult education may be provided.* Basic adult education may be authorized, as necessary, during; ( 1 ) Rehabilitation to the point of employability;
( 2 ) Extended evaluation; and
( 3 ) Independent living services.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3104(a)(1))
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

D.E.W., a child,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D19-508

[November 21, 2019]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Kirk C. Volker, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

502019CJ000012XXXXMB.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Patrick B. Burke, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and James J. Carney, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GROSS, KLINGENSMITH and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
###### Editorial Note on Part 3

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 3 appear at 61 FR 7216, Feb. 27, 1996; 62 FR 35970, July 3, 1997; 62 FR 47532, Sept. 9, 1997; and 67 FR 46868, July 17, 2002.

#### § 3.111 [Reserved]
§ 4.85 Evaluation of hearing impairment. ( a ) An examination for hearing impairment for VA purposes must be conducted by a state-licensed audiologist and must include a controlled speech discrimination test (Maryland CNC) and a puretone audiometry test. Examinations will be conducted without the use of hearing aids.
( b ) Table VI, “Numeric Designation of Hearing Impairment Based on Puretone Threshold Average and Speech Discrimination,” is used to determine a Roman numeral designation (I through XI) for hearing impairment based on a combination of the percent of speech discrimination (horizontal rows) and the puretone threshold average (vertical columns). The Roman numeral designation is located at the point where the percentage of speech discrimination and puretone threshold average intersect.
( c ) Table VIa, “Numeric Designation of Hearing Impairment Based Only on Puretone Threshold Average,” is used to determine a Roman numeral designation (I through XI) for hearing impairment based only on the puretone threshold average. Table VIa will be used when the examiner certifies that use of the speech discrimination test is not appropriate because of language difficulties, inconsistent speech discrimination scores, etc., or when indicated under the provisions of § 4.86.
( d ) “Puretone threshold average,” as used in Tables VI and VIa, is the sum of the puretone thresholds at 1000, 2000, 3000 and 4000 Hertz, divided by four. This average is used in all cases (including those in § 4.86) to determine the Roman numeral designation for hearing impairment from Table VI or VIa.
( e ) Table VII, “Percentage Evaluations for Hearing Impairment,” is used to determine the percentage evaluation by combining the Roman numeral designations for hearing impairment of each ear. The horizontal rows represent the ear having the better hearing and the vertical columns the ear having the poorer hearing. The percentage evaluation is located at the point where the row and column intersect.
( f ) If impaired hearing is service-connected in only one ear, in order to determine the percentage evaluation from Table VII, the non-service-connected ear will be assigned a Roman Numeral designation for hearing impairment of I, subject to the provisions of § 3.383 of this chapter.
( g ) When evaluating any claim for impaired hearing, refer to § 3.350 of this chapter to determine whether the veteran may be entitled to special monthly compensation due either to deafness, or to deafness in combination with other specified disabilities.
( h ) *Numeric tables VI, VIA*, and VII.*
[64 FR 25206, May 11, 1999]
41348.

#### USRY et al. v. BOSTICK.

Decided February 2, 1966

Rehearing denied February 18, 1966

*Fulcher, Fulcher, Hagler & Harper, Gould B. Hagler,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Nicholson & Fleming, William M. Fleming, Jr.,*contra.

Per Curiam.

The decision of this court in *Usry v. Bostick,*112 Ga. App. 76 (143 SE2d 781) having been reversed as to the holding in the third division by the Supreme Court in *Bostick v. Usry,*221 Ga. 647 (146 SE2d 882) because of our erroneous construction of the language used by plaintiff’s counsel in his argument, the judgment heretofore entered as to that is vacated and the judgment of the trial court in denying a new trial is affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Nichols, P. J., Eberhardt and Parnell, JJ., concur.*
110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2490 

AN ACT 

To require the Secretary of Homeland Security to conduct 

a program in the maritime environment for the mobile 

biometric identification of suspected individuals, including terrorists, to enhance border security. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 2490 EH

1 SECTION 1. MARITIME BIOMETRIC IDENTIFICATION. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Within one year after the date of 

3 the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Se4 curity, acting through the Commandant of the Coast 

5 Guard, shall conduct, in the maritime environment, a pro6 gram for the mobile biometric identification of suspected 

7 individuals, including terrorists, to enhance border secu8 rity and for other purposes. 

9 (b) REQUIREMENTS.—The Secretary shall ensure the 

10 program required in this section is coordinated with other 

11 biometric identification programs within the Department 

12 of Homeland Security. 

13 (c) COST ANALYSIS.—Within 90 days after the date 

14 of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit 

15 to the Committees on Appropriations and Homeland Secu16 rity of the House of Representatives and the Committees 

17 on Appropriations and Homeland Security and Govern18 mental Affairs of the Senate an analysis of the cost of 

19 expanding the Coast Guard’s biometric identification ca20 pabilities for use by the Coast Guards Deployable Oper21 ations Group, cutters, stations, and other deployable mari22 time teams considered appropriate by the Secretary, and 

23 any other appropriate Department of Homeland Security 

24 maritime vessels and units. The analysis may include a 

25 tiered plan for the deployment of this program that gives 

26 priority to vessels and units more likely to encounter indi-
3 

•HR 2490 EH

1 viduals suspected of making illegal border crossings 

2 through the maritime environment. 

3 (d) DEFINITION.—For the purposes of this section, 

4 the term ‘‘biometric identification’’ means use of finger5 print and digital photography images. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 29, 2008. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2490 

AN ACT 

To require the Secretary of Homeland Security to 

hance border security. pected individuals, including terrorists, to enfor the mobile biometric identification of susconduct a program in the maritime environment
Order filed September 25, 2014. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-14-00631-CV

____________

THE TEXAS WORKFORCE COMMISSION, Appellant

V.

THE HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT, Appellee

On Appeal from the 55th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2012-34688

O R D E R

This is an appeal from a judgment signed May 5, 2014. Appellant filed a 

timely motion for new trial. The notice of appeal was due August 4, 2014. See Tex. 

R. App. P. 26.1(a)(1). Appellant filed its notice of appeal one day late on August 5, 

2014.

A motion for extension of time is “necessarily implied” when the perfecting 

instrument is filed within fifteen days of its due date. Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 

S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). Appellant did not file a motion to extend time to file 
the notice of appeal. While an extension may be implied, appellant is still obligated 

to come forward with a reasonable explanation to support the late filing. See Miller 

v. Greenpark Surgery Center Assocs., Ltd., 974 S.W.2d 805, 808 (Tex. App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, no pet.). 

Accordingly, we ORDER appellant to file a proper motion to extend time to 

file the notice of appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 26.3; 10.5(b). If appellant does not comply with this order, we will dismiss the 

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3.

PER CURIAM
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 24-1557

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Michael Lee Gene Stapleton

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City

 ____________

 Submitted: August 6, 2024

Filed: August 9, 2024

[Unpublished]

____________

Before GRUENDER, SHEPHERD, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Michael Lee Gene Stapleton appeals after he pled guilty to mail fraud charges

pursuant to a written plea agreement containing an appeal waiver and the district
court1

 imposed a within-Guidelines sentence and ordered restitution. His counsel has

moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), challenging the sentence and restitution order and suggesting Stapleton

asserts he received ineffective assistance of counsel.

We decline to consider any claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct

appeal. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th Cir.

2006) (stating that ineffective-assistance claims are usually best litigated in collateral

proceedings where record can be properly developed). Upon careful review, we

conclude the appeal waiver is valid, enforceable, and applicable to the other issues

raised in this appeal. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010)

(reviewing de novo validity and applicability of appeal waiver); United States v.

Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (appeal waiver will be

enforced if appeal falls within scope of the waiver, defendant knowingly and

voluntarily entered into plea agreement and waiver, and enforcing waiver would not

result in miscarriage of justice). Further, having independently reviewed the record

under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal

outside the scope of the appeal waiver.

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and dismiss this appeal.

______________________________

1The Honorable Roseann A. Ketchmark, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.

-2-
§ 1.900 Prescription of standards. ( a ) The standards contained in §§ 1.900 through 1.953 are issued pursuant to the Federal Claims Collection Standards, issued by the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) in parts 900 through 904 of 31 CFR, as well as other debt collection authority issued by Treasury in part 285 of 31 CFR, and apply to the collection, compromise, termination, and suspension of debts owed to VA, and the referral of such debts to Treasury (or other Federal agencies designated by Treasury) for offset and collection action and to DOJ for litigation, unless otherwise stated in this part or in other statutory or regulatory authority, or by contract.
( b ) Standards and policies regarding the classification of debt for accounting purposes (for example, write-off of uncollectible debt) are contained in the Office of Management and Budget's Circular A-129 (Revised), “Policies for Federal Credit Programs and Non-Tax Receivables.”
(Authority: 31 U.S.C. 3711; 38 U.S.C. 501)
[69 FR 62191, Oct. 25, 2004]