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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE CLARIDGE
HOTEL AND CASINO CORPORATION'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,
2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000730409
<NAME> CLARIDGE HOTEL AND CASINO CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                      23,626,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,085,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,191,000
<INVENTORY>                                    250,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            35,606,000
<PP&E>                                      43,473,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              13,241,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             110,514,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       20,461,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,000
<OTHER-SE>                                (59,458,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               110,514,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           142,588,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               83,450,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            54,633,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               492,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              48,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,965,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,965,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,965,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .78
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .78


</TABLE>
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 19

- 00170

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 67th District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 067

- 306116

- 19

Before Pittman, Birdwell, and Bassel, JJ. Per Curiam Memorandum Opi n ion 

### C RUZ 

### V ENZOR AND 

### J UANA 

### M UNOZ 

### , Appellants

V



### . AMG BT N OTE 

### O NE 

### , LLC, AND 

### A UGUST 

### REI H OLDINGS 

### , LLC , App e llees2 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT On June 24, 2019, we notified appellant s that the trial

- court clerk responsible for preparing the record in this appeal has informed us that appellant s have not arranged to pay for the clerk’s record as the appellate r ules require. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(a)(2). In our notice, we warned that we would dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless, within ten days, appellant s arranged to pay for the clerk’s record and provided us with proof of payment. See Tex. R

. App. P. 35.3(c), 37.3(b), 44.3

. Because appellant s have not made payment arrangements for the clerk’s record, we now dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b), 42.3(b), 43.2(f). Appellant s must pay all costs of this appeal

. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

Per Curiam
Delivered : July 30 , 2019
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 Research Frontiers
Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert L. Saxe,
Chairman of the Board and 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), as applicable, 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/ Robert L. Saxe
    Robert L. Saxe
    Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
    May 7, 2008
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000793024
<NAME> KENT ELECTRONICS CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-01-2000
<CASH>                                          90,131
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  166,005
<ALLOWANCES>                                       873
<INVENTORY>                                    188,231
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               457,021
<PP&E>                                         187,885
<DEPRECIATION>                                  63,168
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 695,530
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          137,781
<BONDS>                                        216,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        64,072
<OTHER-SE>                                     269,629
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   695,530
<SALES>                                        700,284
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               700,284
<CGS>                                          583,586
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  583,586
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 (118)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,727
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 17,814
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,993
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,821
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,821
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.38


</TABLE>
#### *In re*APSEY’S ESTATE. APSEY *v.*DE YOUNG.

Appeal and Error — Probate Appeals — Delayed Appeal — Interlocutory Orders.

A writ of error brought to review the order of a circuit court granting leave to appeal from the admission to probate of a will, after the time limited by statute, will be dismissed by the court on its own motion; since the order in question is merely interlooutory.

Error to Kent; Perkins, J.

Submitted November 13, 1912.

(Docket No. 60.)

Decided December 17, 1912.

Alvin Apsey and another presented for probate an instrument purporting to be the last will of John Apsey, deceased. Jane A. DeYoung and other contestants asked leáve to prosecute a delayed appeal from an order admitting the will to probate. An order granting the petition is reviewed by proponents on writ of error.

Writ dismissed.

*J. T. Preston (Charles E. Ward,*of counsel), for appellants.

*Grove & Davis,*for appellees.

Per Curiam.

Petitioners and appellees applied to the circuit court for leave to appeal from an order of the probate court admitting to probate an instrument purporting to be the last will and testament of John Apsey. An order was made requiring appellants and others to show cause why the prayer of petitioners should not be granted. Many affidavits were filed and were considered by the court, and an order was made granting the right to appeal. Appellants sued out a writ of error to review this order *427and determination, and have brought here the record made upon the said application for leave to appeal. The briefs do not discuss the practice which has been pursued, all parties appearing to be willing, if not desirous, to have this court in this proceeding approve or disapprove of the action of the trial court. At the hearing in this court it was suggested to the attorney for appellee, who alone appeared here, whether appellants had not mistaken their remedy.

Formerly such orders were reviewed in mandamus proceedings. The frequency with which the writ was applied for, the delays occasioned by such reviews, and the difficulty of formulating governing rules of decision were reasons which led this court to refuse to grant, as it formerly had done, its orders to show cause in cases in which the circuit court had permitted the delayed appeal to be made and was asserting jurisdiction to hear and determine the issues involved in the appealed cause. *Cosgrove*v. *Wayne Circuit Judge,*144 Mich. 682 (108 N. W. 361). In the opinion filed in the case just cited, it is pointed out that, if a party is content to stand upon the objections raised to the order permitting the appeal, he may do so, and, after final judgment, may review the ruling on error. If he is not satisfied that his objections are sound, he will probably waive them, proceeding to a trial upon the merits. In any event, final determination of the cause is expedited, and no rights are waived, unless voluntarily. In no case has this court reviewed the interlocutory proceeding on writ of error.

The writ of error will be dismissed. Under the circumstances, we award no costs to either party.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Senior Executive Service ...forum series [electronic resource].**
 
2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005
 
SuDoc Number:L 1.95:
Item Number:0745-K-01 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000658611
 
January 28, 2020
----

 

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002

 

 

In connection with the filing of the Quarterly Report on Form10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission (the "Report") by FCCC, Inc. (the "Registrant"), I, BernardZimmerman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, herebycertify that:

 

| 1.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of		section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as		amended, and  
2.
The information contained in the Report fairly		presents, in all material respects, the financial conditions and results		of operations of Registrant.
 
       /s/ Bernard Zimmerman  
Bernard															Zimmerman  
President and															Chief Executive															Officer 
 

Dated: January 28, 2005

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GLENN MCCLOUD,

Petitioner

- Appellant,

v.

STEVE LAKE, Warden,

Respondent

- Appellee. No. 19

- 15504

D.C. No. 1:18

- cv

- 01072

- JLT

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California Jennifer L. Thurston, Magistrate Judge, Presiding **

Submitted December 11, 2019 * * *

Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges

.

Federal prisoner Glenn McCl oud appeals pro se from the district court’s

judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for a writ of habeas corpus . We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the denial of a section 2241

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The parties consented to proceeding before a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

** * The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

DEC 13 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 19

- 15504

petition de novo, see Tablada v. Thomas , 533 F.3d 800, 805 (9th Cir. 2008), and

we affirm.

McCloud challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding in which he was

sanctioned with the disallowance of good conduct time for committ ing the

prohibited act of disruptive behavior most like possession of a hazardous tool. He

a rgues that he did not receive advance written notice of the charge s, that he was

denied the right to call his requested witness , and that the disciplinary hearing

officer s w ere not impartial

. We conclude that t here was no due process violation.

T he incident report McCloud received described the factual situation that was the

basis for the charge and thus “adequately performed the functions of notice”

articulated in Wolff v. McDonnell , 418 U.S. 539, 564 (1974). See Bostic v.

Carlson , 884 F.2d 1267, 1270

- 71 (9th Cir. 1989)

, overruled on other grounds by

Nettles v. Grounds , 830 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc)

. The record does not

reflect that McCloud was denied an impartial decision maker. See Liteky v. United

States , 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). Moreover, on this record, a ny error that resulted

from McCloud’s inability to call his requested witness was harmless

, s ee Brecht v.

Abrahamson , 507 U.S. 619, 637 (1993)

, and the record shows that “some

evidence” supported the hearing officer’s findings

. S ee Superintendent v. Hill

, 472

U.S. 445, 455 (1985) . Finally, w e reject McCloud’s various challenge s to the

“some evidence” standard set forth in Hill because the Supreme Court “ retains the3 19

- 15504

prerogative of overruling its own decisions. ” See Newman v. Wengler , 790 F.3d

876, 880 (9th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted)

.

AFFIRMED.
#### WOERISHOFFER ET AL., EXECUTORS, v. THE UNITED STATES

November 16, 1925.

[58 C. Cls. 410; 269 U. S. 102]

Judgment was rendered in favor of the United States in the court below. On appeal the judgment was *affirmed,*the Supreme Court deciding:

1. Upon the facts recited in the opinion, *held,*

(a) That certain legacy taxes, assessed under section. 29 of the Spanish War revenue act, were “imposed” prior to July 1, 1902, within the saving clause of the repealing act, c. 500, sec. 7, 32 Stat. 96, although the formal assessment by the Treasury Department was not made before that date. *Cochran,*v. *United States,*254 U. S. 387.

(b) That interests of residuary 'legatees in a portion of the estate not distributed prior to July 1, 1902, were not contingent beneficial interests not absolutely vested in possession or enjoyment prior to July 1, 1902, within the meaning of section 3 of the act of June 27, 1902, e. 1160, 32 Stat. 406. *Kahn*v. *United States,*257 U. S. 244; *Simpson*v. *United States,*252 U. S. 547.

2. Where the Court of Claims overruled, without prejudice, a demurrer -to the petition, and ordered the testimony limited to certain features of the case, objection to the mating of the order, or to the findings of fact covering the entire case, should have been made in that court, as a basis for objection in this court on appeal.

Mr. Justice BeaNdeis

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court
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.

§ 3.661 Eligibility Verification Reports. ( a ) *Determination and entitlement.* ( 1 ) Where the report shows a change in income, net worth, marital status, status of dependents or change in circumstances affecting the application of the net worth provisions, the award will be adjusted in accordance with § 3.660(a)(2).
( 2 ) Where there is doubt as to the extent of anticipated income payment of pension or dependency and indemnity compensation will be authorized at the lowest appropriate rate or will be withheld, as provided in § 3.260(b) or § 3.271 (f).
( b ) *Failure to return report* — ( 1 ) *Section 306 and old-law pension* — ( i ) *Discontinuance.* Discontinuance of old-law or section 306 pension shall be effective the last day of the calendar year for which income (and net worth in a section 306 pension case) was to be reported.
( ii ) *Resumption of benefits.* Payment of old-law or section 306 pension may be resumed, if otherwise in order, from the date of last payment if evidence of entitlement is received within the calendar year following the calendar year for which income (and net worth in a section 306 pension case) was to be reported; otherwise pension may not be paid for any period prior to the date of receipt of a new claim.
( 2 ) *Improved pension and dependency and indemnity compensation* — ( i ) *Discontinuance.* Discontinuance of dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) or improved pension shall be effective the first day of the 12-month annualization period for which income (and net worth in an improved pension case) was to be reported or the effective date of the award, whichever is the later date.
( ii ) *Adjustment of overpayment.* If evidence of entitlement to improved pension or DIC for any period for which payment of improved pension or DIC was discontinued for failure to file an Eligibility Verification Report is received at any time, payment of improved pension or DIC shall be awarded for the period of entitlement for which benefits were discontinued for failure to file an Eligibility Verification Report.
( iii ) *Resumption of benefits.* Payment of improved pension and DIC may be resumed, if otherwise in order, from the date of last payment if evidence of entitlement is received within the 12-month annualization period following the 12-month annualization period for which income (and net worth in an improved pension case) was to be reported; otherwise pension or DIC may not be paid for any period prior to receipt of a new claim.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501)
[30 FR 3355, Mar. 12, 1965, as amended at 44 FR 45942, Aug. 6, 1979; 46 FR 55098, Nov. 6, 1981; 57 FR 59300, Dec. 15, 1992]
§ 61.32 Per diem application packages—rating criteria. ( a ) *Conditional selection.* Application packages for per diem only (*i.e.*, from non-capital grant applicants) in response to a Notice of Fund Availability (NOFA) will be reviewed and grouped in categories according to the funding priorities set forth in the NOFA, if any. Such applications will then be ranked within their respective funding category according to scores achieved only if the applicant scores at least 750 cumulative points out of a possible 1000 from each of the following paragraphs: (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g) of § 61.13. The highest-ranked applications for which funding is available, within highest funding priority category if applicable, will be conditionally selected for eligibility to receive per diem payments or special need payment in accordance with their ranked order. If funding priorities have been established and funds are still available after selection of those applicants in the highest priority group, VA will continue to conditionally select applicants in lower priority categories in accordance with the selection method set forth in this paragraph subject to available funding. Conditional selectees will be subsequently awarded per diem, if they otherwise meet the requirements of this part, including passing the inspection required by § 61.80.
( b ) *Ranking applications.* In the event of a tie between applicants, VA will use the score from § 61.13(g) to determine the ranking. Note: Capital grant recipients are not required to be ranked; however, continuation of per diem payments to capital grant recipients will be subject to limitations set forth in § 61.33.
( c ) *Executing per diem agreements.* VA will execute per diem agreements with an applicant whose per diem application was conditionally selected under this section using the same procedures applicable to a capital grant under § 61.15.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 2012)
**Exhibit99.1**

 

**PERIODIC REPORT CERTIFICATION**

**of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer**

 

I, Asa W. Lanum, Chief Executive Officer of Fortel, Inc. (the“Company”), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

(1) the Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarterly periodending June 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and result of operations of theCompany.

 
| By:                     |  /s/Asa W.  Lanum |   |
|-------------------------|------------------------|--------|
| ASA W. LANUM            |
| Chief Executive Officer |
| August 14, 2002         |

 

I, Romeo R. Dizon, Acting Chief Financial Officer of Fortel, Inc. (the“Company”), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

(1) the Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarterly periodending June 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and result of operations of theCompany.

 
| By:                                                          | /s/Romeo R. Dizon |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------|--------|
| ROMEO R. DIZON                                               |
| Chief Accounting Officer and Acting Chief Financial  Officer |
| August 14, 2002                                              |

 

----
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT 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 CandelaCorporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31,2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, F. Paul Broyer, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2) The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultof operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date: February 7,  2006 | /s/ F. Paul  Broyer      |   |
|------------------------------|--------------------------|--------|
|                         | F. Paul Broyer           |
|                         | Chief Financial  Officer |

 

----