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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary information extracted from SEC Form 10Q and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-28-1997             JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-28-1996             SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                           3,019                   3,063
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,902                   5,734
<ALLOWANCES>                                       317                     359
<INVENTORY>                                      5,715                   5,120
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                16,736                  14,150
<PP&E>                                           4,983                   4,490
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,820                   3,312
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  18,729                  15,656
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,782                   6,728
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                            53                      54
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,373                   8,607
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    18,729                  15,656
<SALES>                                          7,639                   5,984
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,654                   6,011
<CGS>                                            3,885                   3,591
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,885                   3,591
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,024                   2,516
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  17                      10
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    728                   (106)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       218                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                510                   (106)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                       510                   (106)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.09                  (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.09                  (0.02)
        

</TABLE>
#### Harry D. Hanson et al., Respondents, *v.*Thomas Farese, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of Hew York, borough of Manhattan, rendered in favor of the plaintiffs upon a trial had without a jury.

Samuel Feldman (Herman M. Schaap, of counsel),, for appellant.

Kneeland, La Fetra & Glaze (E. B. La Fetra, of counsel), for respondents.

*Per Curiam,.*

The action is to recover the value of services rendered by the plaintiffs to the defendant as veterinary surgeons. The employment of the plaintiffs was disputed at the time, but there was sufficient evidence adduced in their behalf to- warrant the justice in finding, as he did, in their favor.

The defendant is in error with respect to the contention that the co-partnership of the plaintiffs was not established. Proof of such fact will be found on the first and second pages of the stenographer’s minutes.

The exceptions noted by the defendant are without merit.

We conclude , that the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Present: Beekmah, P. J., Giegebich and O’Gobmae, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 FEB-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   APR-30-2000
<CASH>                                             131,116
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      163,473
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   294,589
<PP&E>                                              57,163
<DEPRECIATION>                                      56,192
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     296,297
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              306,071
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            40,071
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,906,088
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       296,297
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         0
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    46,496
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (46,496)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (46,496)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (46,946)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.01)



</TABLE>
#### ROGERS V. THE STATE.

(Decided May 9, 1912.)

Appeal from Jefferson Criminal Court.

Heard before Hon. S. L. Weaver.

Hugh H. Ellis, for appellant. R. C. Briokell, Attorney General, and W. L. Martin, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Walker, P. J.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           3,268
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,049
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,490)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,762
<PP&E>                                           3,674
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,804)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  16,365
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,134
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        66,326
<OTHER-SE>                                    (61,019)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    16,365
<SALES>                                          6,318
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,318
<CGS>                                            3,427
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,357
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   202
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 172
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,840)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,840)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,840)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.08)


</TABLE>
## ii[c 

# il ri 

### E# 

### SPPT 

### CH}[ 

# SOCMA

'ii 

### I$tf,

### stP

# -9 At{ a .:. a" r .-.+ 1r ,L lcilr Iurr:t:t



### 23 CBIC Control Humber



## 366218 September 4, 2015
Document 

### Control Office (7405M) 

### Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) 

### Environmental Protection Agency 

### Environmental Protection Agency East Building, Room E6428 (202-564-8930) 1201 

### Constitution Avenue, NW 

### Washington, DC20460 

### Attention: Toxic Substances 

### Control Act Section 

### 4

40 cFR 799.s087 Docket ID 

### Number: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007-0531 Rel Testing 

### of Certain Hieh 

### Production Volume Chemicals; Second 

### Groupof Chemicals, Federal Register 76 (5), 1067-1093, 

### Janudry7,2011; Castor 

### Oil, Sulfated, Sodium Salt, CAS No. 

### 68187-76-g To

### Whom It May Concern: The U.S. 

### Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

### promulgated a

### final TSCA

### test rule on January 7,201-1 (75 FR 1067-L093) 

### that requires 

### manufacturers (including importers) and processors

### of Sulfated Castor Oil

### to conduct testing

### to obtain screening level data 

### for health and 

### environmental effects and chemical 

### fate. The Sulfated Castor Oil (SCO) 

### Consortium, a cost-sharing 

### consortium affiliated 

### with the Society 

### of Chemical 

### Manufacturers &

### Affiliates (SOCMA), is pleased

### to provide 

### test results 

### in response 

### tothe EPA

### test rule, 

### which we believe 

### willfulfill the rule 

### requirements. The SCO is made up 

### of the 

### following U.S. 

### manufacturers of Castor Oil, Sulfated, sodium Salt, CAS No. 

### 58187-76-8: 

### Afton Chemical 

### Corporation M

### anufacturers Chemical, LLC Emerald Carolina Chemical LLC The SCO has

### conductedtesting in accordance 

### with the EPA-approved Test Plan and 

### offers

### the following studies:

1850 MStreet NW. Suite 700. Washington, DG.20036 Phone: 2O2-TZl4t57 . Fax: 202-296{{20

# <,

# _t C, 

# f+- 

# ift '-= 

# Eo 

# tfs SE rb $ [E 

# sa"d s h-P ,t It F 

## f l, t, 

# g $$M E $

# $ElE =* 

# IN/
$H 

# i= E--SE 

# +:= *-= 

# =E-== clffi 1JEI T-- 

### 6-

Labet400 Jan. 2013 roso_raoob_iifi -1

:D (: (-) (,N7\C mrn c:.tz..Er, :)T :O :rt cf ,H f :r .J(4-I1. c>rl Fl :lar\).r:D (D'LJ I ll-\,11r-rxa -J- :=. rj)r*Eo E3,-"1 -._.rrr- 2 

## ?tLfl ur 

## :( B <f :D i?l LJ
§ 21.4274 Law courses. ( a ) *Accredited.* A law course in an accredited law school leading to a standard professional law degree will be assessed as provided in § 21.4273(a).
( b ) *Nonaccredited.* A law course leading to a professional law degree, completion of which will satisfy State educational requirements for admission to legal practice, pursued in a nonaccredited law school which requires for admission to the course at least 60 standard semester units of credit or the equivalent in quarter units of credit, will be assessed on the basis of 12 class sessions per week for full-time attendance. If the course does not meet these requirements it will be assessed on the basis of clock hours of attendance per week.
[36 FR 18304, Sept. 11, 1971, as amended at 38 FR 19371, July 20, 1973; 41 FR 47931, Nov. 1, 1976]
Editorial Note on Part 36
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 36 appear at 61 FR 7217, Feb. 27, 1996, and 86 FR 51275, Sept. 15, 2021.

§ 36.4530 Vendee loan other fees. ( a ) In addition to the fees that may be charged pursuant to §§ 36.4528 and 36.4529 and the statutory loan fee charged pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 3729, the borrower may be required to pay third-party fees for services performed in connection with a vendee loan.
( b ) Examples of the third party fees that may be charged in connection with a vendee loan include, but are not limited to: ( 1 ) Termite inspections;
( 2 ) Hazard insurance premiums;
( 3 ) Force-placed insurance premiums;
( 4 ) Courier fees;
( 5 ) Tax certificates; and
( 6 ) Recorder's fees.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 2041, 3720, 3733)
[82 FR 35904, Aug. 2, 2017]
June 6, 2013

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

HARVEST LIFE FOUNDATION, FKA OPERATION REACH COMMUNITY 

DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Appellant

NO. 14-11-01038-CV V.

HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT, Appellee

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from the portion of the judgment, signed September 1, 

2011, in favor of appellee, Harris County Appraisal District, was heard on the 

transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find no error in the 

judgment. We order the judgment of the court below AFFIRMED.

We order appellant, Harvest Life Foundation, fka Operation Reach 

Community Development Corporation, to pay all costs incurred in this appeal. 

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
(a)  A review of Exeter Finance
        LLC’s activities and of its performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of December 31, 2020 (the “Sale and Servicing Agreement”), among Exeter Holdings Trust 2021-1, EFCAR, LLC, Exeter Finance LLC, as servicer (in such capacity,
        the “Servicer”), Exeter Automobile Receivables Trust 2021-1, and Citibank, N.A., as indenture trustee and backup servicer, during the period from February 3, 2021 to December 31, 2021 has been made under my supervision.
 
 (b)  To the best of my
        knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the aforementioned period.
 
   By:  /s/ Ben Miller
Exhibit
32





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. §1350 (as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002), we, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
of Peoples Educational Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certify that the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended
November 30, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:  January
      14, 2010/s/ Brian T. BeckwithBrian
      T. Beckwith,President
      and Chief Executive Officer





/s/ Michael L. DeMarcoMichael
      L. DeMarco,Executive
      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-41036

Summary Calendar 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee 

v. 

NICOLAS BENITEZ-TORRES 

Defendant-Appellant 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 7:16-CR-398-1 

Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Nicolas Benitez-Torres has moved 

for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th 

Cir. 2011). Benitez-Torres has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s 

brief, Benitez-Torres’ response, and the relevant portions of the record 

reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 13, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-41036 Document: 00513908322 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/13/2017
No. 16-41036

2 

presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s 

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further 

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 16-41036 Document: 00513908322 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/13/2017
#### Joseph William MASSEY et al *v.*W. H. ENFIELD, Judge

CR 75-143

531 S.W. 2d 706

Opinion delivered January 19, 1976

*Jim H. Boyd,*for appellants.

*Jim Guy Tucker,*Atty. Gen., by: *Gary Isbell,*Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

George Rose Smith, Justice.

The three petitioners were convicted in the circuit court upon charges involving the possession of marijuana. Joseph William Massey and his wife were each sentenced to a year in jail and a $250 fine. The third petitioner, James Ray Mclnish, was sentenced to three years’ confinement in the penitentiary. Notice of appeal was filed by defense counsel.

Thereafter the three petitioners filed a declaration of indigency and a request that they be supplied with an appellate record at state expense. The declaration of indigency, which is sworn to, states that the petitioners have expended all their funds in their defense, that they are indigent, and that they are free on bond paid for by their parents, but their parents are unable and unwilling to provide further legal assistance. On August 13, 1975, the circuit court denied the request for a free record, finding that the defendants had been employed since January of 1975 and are not indigent. The petitioners then filed this application for a writ of mandamus to compel the circuit court to provide them with an appellate record at public expense.

*86The petition must be denied. Mandamus cannot be used to control a trial court’s discretion. We can issue the writ to require a trial judge to hear a case, but we cannot tell him how to decide it. *Wirges*v. *Bean, Judge,*238 Ark. 104, 378 S.W. 2d 641 (1964). Hence the writ does not lie when a question of fact is presented. *Mothershead*v. *Ponder, Chancellor,*220 Ark. 816, 250 S.W. 2d 121 (1952).

Here the record presented such a question. At their trial both Massey and Mclnish testified that they were employed. Massey was also receiving $100 a month as child support. He further stated that he and his wife had paid their rent for six months in advance from proceeds derived from the sale of a house. On the other side, the petitioners’ verified declaration of indigency merely states, as a conclusion, that they have spent their funds in their defense and are indigent. Such conclusory allegations might or might not be a sound basis for a charge of perjury if the State thought them to be false. In any event, however, the issue in the trial court was one of fact, not to be reviewed by mandamus.

Petition denied.
**** 

**** 

**EXHIBIT 32.2**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18.U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of ParkwayProperties, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the"Report"), I, Richard G. Hickson IV, Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements ofsection 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 ofthe Company.
> 
                                                                                                               /s/ Richard G. Hickson                    IV                                                                                                    

                                                                                                                                                                                               Richard G. Hickson IV (*)

                                                                                                                          Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer 

                                                                                                                                                                                               August 4, 2010 

*    A signedoriginal of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided toParkway Properties, Inc. and will be retained by the Company and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

                                                                                                                                                                                                              3

----
Bridgecrest Credit Company  OFFICER’S CERTIFICATE  The undersigned hereby certifies that he is a duly authorized officer of Bridgecrest Credit  Company (the “Servicer”), and that as such he is authorized to execute and deliver this certificate  in the name and on behalf of Bridgecrest Credit Company, and certifies that:  1. I have reviewed the activities of the Servicer during the period January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2023 and of its performance under the Servicing Agreement; and 2. to the best of my knowledge, based on such review and other than described herein, the Servicer has substantially fulfilled all its obligations under the Servicing Agreement for the above referenced period. This certificate is delivered in accordance with Section 2.9 of the Carvana Auto Receivables 2021- N3 Servicing Agreement dated as of September 9, 2021, among Carvana Auto Receivables Trust  2021-N3, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association and Bridgecrest Credit Company. This  certificate is dated as of December 31, 2023.  By: _______________________________  Daniel Gaudreau  Chief Financial Officer  /s/ Daniel Gaudreau Exhibit 35.1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

WESTERN DISTRICT 

ANTONIO SIERRA, 

 Appellant 

 v. 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Appellee 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

: 

No. 27 WAP 2016 

Appeal from the Order of the Court of 

Common Pleas of Erie County dated July 

26, 2016 at No. 10808-2016 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

 AND NOW, this 1st day of November, 2016, the Notice of Appeal is QUASHED. 

The Application for Relief, Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, and Pro Se Notice 

to be Heard Before a Judge are DISMISSED AS MOOT.