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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001004932
<NAME> ORCA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         472,754
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  441,825
<ALLOWANCES>                                   224,598
<INVENTORY>                                     36,728
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               809,855
<PP&E>                                       2,994,409
<DEPRECIATION>                                 608,224
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,674,890
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,816,494
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,834
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,555,672
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,674,890
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              (3,493,139)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               189,598
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             248,685
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,716,666)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,716,666)
<DISCONTINUED>                             (3,617,072)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (7,333,738)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.12)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 13.2

                CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
         PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Christopher Morris, the Principal Financial Officer of SVG
Capital, plc (the "Company"), has executed this certification in connection with
the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Company's Annual
Report on Form 20-F for the Fiscal Year ended December 31, 2005 (the "Report").

The undersigned hereby certifies 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 condition and results of
                 operations of the Company.

Date: July 14, 2006

                                 /s/ Christopher Morris
                                 ----------------------------------------------


                                 Principal Financial Officer
# Comments on: 20-1101: TENSTREET, LLC v. DRIVERREACH, LLC [OPINION], Nonprecedential
Due to the file size of ADEQ’s CALPUFF modeling files, they are not available from the electronic docket. These files are available upon request. Please email your request to: Michael Feldman ( feldman.michael @epa.gov ) or call 214 - 665 - 7200 . Thank y ou .
No. 10-11297.

#### Chang *v.*Rockridge Manor Condominium et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Surface Transportation Board 

          - [STB Ex Parte No. 290 (Sub No. 5) (2000-3)] 

# AGENCY:

Surface Transportation Board. 

# ACTION:

Approval of rail cost adjustment factor. 

# SUMMARY:

The Board has approved the third quarter 2000 rail cost adjustment factor (RCAF) and cost index filed by the Association of American Railroads. The third quarter 2000 RCAF (Unadjusted) is 1.050. The third quarter 2000 RCAF (Adjusted) is 0.588. The third quarter 2000 RCAF-5 is 0.569. 

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

July 1, 2000. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

H. Jeff Warren, (202) 565-1533. TDD for the hearing impaired: (202)565-1695. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Additional information is contained in the Board's decision. To purchase a copy of the full decision, write to, call, or pick up in person from: DA• TO• DA OFFICE SOLUTIONS, Suite 210, 1925 K Street, NW, Washington, DC 20423-0001, telephone (202) 289-4357. [Assistance for the hearing impaired is                           ( print page 39222)                        available through TDD services (202) 565-1695.]                 

This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the human environment or energy conservation. 

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), we conclude that our action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

Decided: June 19, 2000. 

By the Board, Chairman Morgan, Vice Chairman Burkes, and Commissioner Clyburn. 

Vernon A. Williams, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 00-15968 Filed 6-22-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4915-00-P
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

DOROTHY M. HARTMAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________

2022-1955

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims 

in No. 1:21-cv-02214-MCW, Senior Judge Mary Ellen Coster Williams.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________ 

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

Dorothy M. Hartman submits a document challenging 

the court’s September 16, 2022, notice that her opening 

brief and appendix are not compliant with the court’s rules. 

The document further argues that she is “owed a Default 

Judgment by law.” ECF No. 15 at 2. Ms. Hartman has 

since moved to withdraw ECF No. 15, but continues to challenge the notice of non-compliance, ECF No. 17. We 

Case: 22-1955 Document: 20 Page: 1 Filed: 11/09/2022
2 HARTMAN v. US

construe Ms. Hartman’s filings as a motion to accept her 

non-conforming opening brief and appendix. We accept 

Ms. Hartman’s non-conforming opening brief and appendix 

for filing and, after careful review of her submissions, conclude that summary affirmance is appropriate. 

The United States Court of Federal Claims dismissed, 

concluding that Ms. Hartman’s “complaint [in this case] is 

substantively identical to the complaint in her 2020 case 

that the Court of Federal Claims dismissed ‘without leave 

to replead’ and [we] affirmed” in Hartman v. United States, 

No. 2021-1535 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 3, 2021), and any claims that 

the judges and Government attorneys involved in her 2020 

case defamed and discredited her were outside of the 

court’s limited jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 16 at 2–3. 

Ms. Hartman’s submissions provide no cognizable, 

non-frivolous argument that the Court of Federal Claims

erred in dismissing her complaint. The trial court correctly 

recognized that she is precluded from relitigating claims 

previously raised (and resolved) in Hartman, No. 2021-

1535, ECF No. 44. And the trial court was clearly correct 

that it generally lacks jurisdiction over tort claims, 28 

U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1), and claims “against individual federal 

officials,” Brown v. United States, 105 F.3d 621, 624 (Fed. 

Cir. 1997). 

We therefore summarily affirm. Joshua v. United 

States, 17 F.3d 378, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (holding that 

“summary disposition is appropriate, inter alia, when the 

position of one party is so clearly correct as a matter of law 

that no substantial question regarding the outcome of the 

appeal exists”).

Accordingly,

Case: 22-1955 Document: 20 Page: 2 Filed: 11/09/2022
HARTMAN v. US 3

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

(1) Ms. Hartman’s opening brief and appendix, ECF 

No. 12, are accepted for filing. 

(2) The Court of Federal Claims’ judgment dismissing 

Ms. Hartman’s claims is summarily affirmed.

(3) Any other pending motions are denied as moot.

(4) Each party shall bear its own costs.

 November 9, 2022

 Date

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

 Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court

 

 

Case: 22-1955 Document: 20 Page: 3 Filed: 11/09/2022
# 705-/5" ELECTRONIC RECORD COA # 07-13-00286-CR OFFENSE: 38.04 

### SammyVidales v. The State of 

### STYLE: Texas COUNTY: Lubbock AFFIRMED, REVERSED COA DISPOSITION: & REMANDED TRIAL COURT: 137th District Court DATE: 7/7/2015 Publish: YES TC CASE #: 2012-436,579



### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINALAPPEALS STYLE: Sammy Vidales v. The State ofTexas CCA#: 

# 10S-IS SPA\5 FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS: DATE 

# A JUDGE: fffo .UjhuZ-^. 

## FORDISCRETIONARYREVIEW 

# Tfi ~^f.Fui&)) pATP tpJ(T7 /tot? JUDGE Petition 

### CCADisposition: DATE: JUDGE: SIGNED: PUBLISH:
REHEARING IN CCA IS: JUDGE: PC:_ DNP:

MOTION FOR
ELECTRONIC RECORD
No. 92-1537.

#### Gonzalez *v.*Salvation Army, dba Salvation Army Correctional Services.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
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 Angelica Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Stephen M. OHara, President 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) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
   
 Dated: December 9, 2004
 
 /s/ Stephen M. OHaraStephen M. OHaraPresident and Chief Executive Officerof Angelica Corporation
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001004539
<NAME> AIRPLANES LIMITED
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                             219
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       39
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (12)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   242
<PP&E>                                           4,375
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,039
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,643
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              137
<BONDS>                                          4,005
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,005)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,643
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   532
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      276
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    38
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 343
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (122)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (10)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (122)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (112)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Yc°*l °f ^'W'1^1 Vff&^f £7,302-03

^'t'oms.R/PlBintiff

Jtfj;oia»n4 / Ks:$ panted.•

Y^kl.

192015

T ,« X ,,_JW^B,i^""^^i^'-JS»i^-JW-ViAlt',-JC»l^'7Al0^...

To XT»CME.4ET'«iJE; oR - C.mC4 ...+>* ^^^ ,MWH,CH *;„

tef^foL mwiifM

flllfcYl mtfl

T-a-C-X Mo. l71o277

Xowm wkK;t*xm$ 76367

"J^* u.4.G.$ I7^E*3bWU oA-.o3-ie-iS
#### § 60-3.3 Discrimination defined: Relationship between use of selection procedures and discrimination.

A. *Procedure having adverse impact constitutes discrimination unless justified.* The use of any selection procedure which has an adverse impact on the hiring, promotion, or other employment or membership opportunities of members of any race, sex, or ethnic group will be considered to be discriminatory and inconsistent with these guidelines, unless the procedure has been validated in accordance with these guidelines, or the provisions of section 6 of this part are satisfied.

B. *Consideration of suitable alternative selection procedures.* Where two or more selection procedures are available which serve the user's legitimate interest in efficient and trustworthy workmanship, and which are substantially equally valid for a given purpose, the user should use the procedure which has been demonstrated to have the lesser adverse impact. Accordingly, whenever a validity study is called for by these guidelines, the user should include, as a part of the validity study, an investigation of suitable alternative selection procedures and suitable alternative methods of using the selection procedure which have as little adverse impact as possible, to determine the appropriateness of using or validating them in accord with these guidelines. If a user has made a reasonable effort to become aware of such alternative procedures and validity has been demonstrated in accord with these guidelines, the use of the test or other selection procedure may continue until such time as it should reasonably be reviewed for currency. Whenever the user is shown an alternative selection procedure with evidence of less adverse impact and substantial evidence of validity for the same job in similar circumstances, the user should investigate it to determine the appropriateness of using or validating it in accord with these guidelines. This subsection is not intended to preclude the combination of procedures into a significantly more valid procedure, if the use of such a combination has been shown to be in compliance with the guidelines.
# Comments on: 23-1875: BRADFORD v. AIR FORCE [ORDER], Nonprecedential
#### § 51-9.304-1 Records available without charge.

The Executive Director shall make one copy of a record available to an employee without charge, and may waive the fee requirement for any other individual requesting records if the cost of collecting the fee is an unduly large part of, or greater than, the fee, or when furnishing the record without charge conforms to generally established business custom or is in the public interest.
Executiv e Orde r 1286 6 an d Congressiona l Revie w Requirement s Rulemakin g Documen t

Title : \t V CffZ?OL ^ ?fe^ . CjOYYCdt\>iK ^ J^iMX^WtAvc k 

### RIN:7.l^i^/\C^] . Z\r^^-AC2< \^foC-AT^lf. j Wit hrespec t t o th e attache drulemakin g document(s) : 1 . E.0,12866 : Th e requirement s o f sectio n 6(a)(3)(E ) o f

E.O . 1286 6 hav e bee n met i n accordanc e wit

hth e followin g [initial appropriat e line] :

Oi^lt LTh e rulemakin g document(s ) wa s no t reviewe db y th e Offic e o f Informatio n and Regulator y Affair s (OIRA) . ^^^ ^ N o substantiv e change s were mad e t o th e document(s ) afte r i t wa s submitte dt o OIRA . Th e require dinformatio n i s attached . 2 . Congressiona l Review : Th e requirement s o f th e Smal l Busines s Regulatory Enforcement Fairnes s Ac t fo r th e submissio n o f

final rule s t o Congres s an dGA O ( § 801 ) hav e bee n met i n accordanc e wit

h th e followin g [initia

l appropriat e line] : f >\fe LThi s documen t

i s no t afinal rule . _^^ ^ Thi s documen t

i s no t arul e under

( § 804) . Th e document

ha s bee n submitte dt o C-5 0 fo r transmissio n t o Congres s andGAO .

Signature X Nam e

Date ' ' I
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BEATRIZ CINTHYA RAMIREZ, AKA Beatriz Cinthya Reyes-Lozano, Petitioner,
v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. No. 11-72660 Agency No. A095-667-977
MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted April 6, 2015 ** Pasadena, California Before: KLEINFELD, McKEOWN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Beatriz Cynthia Ramirez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ determination that she is statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 

# FILED
APR 10 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).On de novo review, we deny the petition. Latter–Singh v. Holder , 668 F.3d 1156, 1159 (9th Cir. 2012) Ramirez was convicted of grand theft under California Penal Code Section 487 and petty theft with priors under S ections 484 and 666. Convictions under California’s theft statute, whether petty or grand, are categorically crimes involving moral turpitude. Castillo-Cruz v. Holder , 581 F.3d 1154, 1160 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Esparza-Ponce , 193 F.3d 1133, 1136–37 (9th Cir. 1999). Ramirez’s multiple convictions for crimes involving moral turpitude render her ineligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) and 1229b(b)(1)(C). She is also ineligiblefor special rule cancellation of removal under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Centr al American Relief Act because her convictions preclude her from establishing her good moral character for “10 years immediately following the commission of an act . . . constituting a ground for removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1240.66(c)(2)-(3). DENIED.
EX-10.71



 Exhibit 10.71 

AMENDMENT TO GUARANTY 

THIS AMENDMENT TO GUARANTY (the “Amendment”) is entered into as of October 15, 2015, by RISE CREDIT SERVICE OF OHIO,
LLC (hereinafter referred to as “CSO”), to and for the benefit of NCP FINANCE OHIO, LLC (hereinafter referred to as “Lender”), under the following circumstances: 

A. CSO and Lender are parties to a Guaranty dated as of July 15, 2015 (the “Original Guaranty”). 

B. Lender and CSO have not yet commenced lending. 

C. During the course of development of the products to be offered to Customers, the parties have determined the Customers will
not be obligated to pay late fees or NSF fees. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the
parties hereto agree as follows: 
 1. Section 1 of the Original Guaranty is hereby deleted and replaced with the following: 

1. Guaranty. Pursuant to each credit services contract between CSO and each borrower with respect to loans offered by
Lender under Lender’s Ohio lending program (each a “Loan”), and regardless of whether the credit services contract is cancelled, CSO agrees to, and hereby does, unconditionally guaranty, on behalf of the borrower, and for the benefit
of Lender, the prompt payment of all amounts due under each Loan to Lender, including all principal and interest but excluding accrued fees (the “Loan Guaranty Amount”). 

2. Except as modified by this Amendment, the Original Guaranty is hereby ratified and confirmed in all respects. 

3. This Amendment shall be governed by the laws of the State of Ohio. 

4. This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original but all of which together shall
constitute one in the same instrument. 
 [SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOLLOW.] 

  
 Page 1 of 2









 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the day and year first
written above. 
  

			
	 CSO:
  

RISE CREDIT SERVICE OF OHIO, LLC

		
	By:	 	 /s/ Kenneth E. Rees

	Printed Name: Kenneth E. Rees
	Title: CEO


 AGREED AND ACCEPTED: 
  

			
	NCP FINANCE OHIO, LLC
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Stephen McAllister

	Printed Name: Stephen McAllister
	Title: CEO


  
 Page 2 of 2
§ 303-70.200 Under what circumstances may we authorize an escort for the remains of a deceased employee? You may authorize the escort of remains when the employee's death occurs: ( a ) While in official travel status away from the official station inside CONUS;
( b ) While assigned to official duties OCONUS or in transit thereto or therefrom; or
( c ) While reassigned away from actual place of residence under a mandatory mobility agreement.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

MARK DUNNING INDUSTRIES, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

ZERO WASTE SOLUTIONS, INC.,

Defendant

______________________

2019-1885

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims 

in No. 1:18-cv-01803-CFL, Senior Judge Charles F. Lettow.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

NICHOLAS SOLOSKY, Fox Rothschild LLP, Washington, 

DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by 

DOUGLAS HIBSHMAN. 

 JOSEPH ALAN PIXLEY, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. Also 

Case: 19-1885 Document: 80 Page: 1 Filed: 10/19/2020
represented by JEFFREY B. CLARK, ROBERT EDWARD 

KIRSCHMAN, JR., FRANKLIN E. WHITE, JR. 

 ______________________

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

 PER CURIAM (NEWMAN, DYK, and HUGHES, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

October 19, 2020 

Date

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

Case: 19-1885 Document: 80 Page: 2 Filed: 10/19/2020