alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
Consolidated  Financial  Statements  at September  30, 1997  (unaudited)  and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         37
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,722
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (82)
<INVENTORY>                                    2,876
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               4,642
<PP&E>                                         1,107
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (302)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 5,447
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,043
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       54
<OTHER-SE>                                     3,248
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   5,447
<SALES>                                        7,787
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               7,787
<CGS>                                          5,987
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  5,987
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1,487
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             65
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                248
<INCOME-TAX>                                   11
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            237
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   237
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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 Openwave Systems Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), Bruce T. Coleman, as Interim Chief Executive Officer of Openwave Systems Inc., certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that, to the best of his
knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of Openwave Systems Inc.



| |  |                  |  |  |  |     |  |                                                 
| |  | ---------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ------------------------------------------------
| |  |                  |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Bruce T. Coleman                            
| |  | November 7, 2008 |  |  |  |     |  | Bruce T. Coleman Interim Chief Executive Officer

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Openwave Systems Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Karen J. Willem, as Chief Financial Officer of Openwave Systems Inc., certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that, to the best of her knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Openwave Systems Inc.



| |  |                  |  |  |  |     |  |                                                                  
| |  | ---------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------
| |  |                  |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Karen J. Willem                                              
| |  |                  |  |  |  |     |  | Karen J. Willem Senior
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
| |  |                  |  | 
| |  | November 7, 2008 |  |  |  |     |  |
Exhibit 32(b)








This Certification is being furnished and shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section.  This Certification shall not be incorporated by reference into any registration statement or other document pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933, except as otherwise stated in such filing.








Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63


of Title 18 of the United States Code








In connection with the Quarterly Report of Appalachian Power Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q (the “Report”) for the quarter ended  June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Brian X. Tierney, the chief financial 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, based on my knowledge (i) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








/s/ Brian X. Tierney


Brian X. Tierney


Chief Financial Officer








July 30, 2010








A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to American Electric Power Company, Inc. and will be retained by American Electric Power Company, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 96-30322

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

VERSUS

JIM LEWIS

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Louisiana

(95-CV-3200-G)

October 21, 1996

Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 1

Jim Lewis, #23220-034, appeals from the district court’s order

dismissing his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We affirm.

Lewis argues that: (1) the Government knowingly used perjured

testimony; (2) counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the2

miscalculation of h is criminal history score; (3) the district

court erred in failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing; and (4)

the district court erred in finding that his contentions that the

district court erred in refusing to award a decrease for acceptance

of responsibility and in calculating his criminal histo ry score

were procedurally barred beca use he failed to show cause and

prejudice for failing to raise the issues on direct appeal.

Lewis argues, for the first t ime on appeal, that the

Government knowingly used perjured testimony and that counsel was

ineffective for failing to object to the district court’s alleged

miscalculation of his criminal history score. We decline to review

these arguments because there is no clear error. H ighlands Ins. v.

National Union Fire Ins.

, 27 F.3d 1027 (5th Cir. 1994) (applying

the standard of United States v. Calverley

, 37 F.3d 160, 162-64

(5th Cir. 1994) (en banc), cert. denied

, 115 S. Ct. 1266 (1995) to

civil cases), cert. denied 115 S. Ct. 903 (1995).

The district court did not err in refusing to conduct an

evidentiary hearing because the r ecord is sufficient for

determinat ion of Lewis’s contentions. S ee United States v.

Drummond

, 910 F.2d 284, 285 (5th Cir. 1990), cert. denied

, 498 U.S.

1104 (1991).

Lewis’s claims that the district court erred in refusing to

award a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility and in

allegedly miscalculating his criminal history score are not

cognizable in a § 2255 proceeding because the district court’s3

application of the Sentencing Guidelines does not raise a

constitutional issue. United States v. Vaughn , 955 F.2d 367, 368

(5th Cir. 1992).

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001004232
<NAME> CYBERCASH,INC.
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                      18,176,010
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,755,261
<ALLOWANCES>                                   361,170
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            22,954,668
<PP&E>                                      20,286,802
<DEPRECIATION>                              10,321,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             108,705,664
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,516,070
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        24,702
<OTHER-SE>                                 102,164,892
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               108,705,664
<SALES>                                     20,254,075
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            20,254,075
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               62,583,443
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (43,131,505)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (43,131,505)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (43,131,505)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (2.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.02)


</TABLE>
#### § 302-6.9 Who may occupy temporary quarters at Government expense?

Only you and/or your immediate family, as annotated on the relocation authorization, may occupy temporary quarters at Government expense.
062P16

#### State v. Walter Lemley, Jr.

1. Defs *Pro Se*Motion for PDR (COAP16-47)

1. Dismissed

2. Defs *Pro Se*Motion to Proceed *In Forma Pauperis*

2. Allowed

3. Defs *Pro Se*Motion to Appoint Counsel

3. Dismissed as moot
#### § 60-741.22 Direct threat defense.

The contractor may use as a qualification standard the requirement that an individual be able to perform the essential functions of the position held or desired without posing a direct threat to the health or safety of the individual or others in the workplace. (See § 60-741.2(e) defining *direct threat.*)
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

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

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

December 11, 2019

a1204 

# Order

Clerk December 11, 2019

159835

BEVERLY JUNE GRAY, Personal

Representative of the ESTATE OF WANDA

JESSE,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 159835

COA: 341805

Berrien CC: 17

- 000215

- NM

LAKELAND SPECIALTY HOSPITAL

AT BERRIEN CENTER,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 14, 2019

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

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
**EXHIBIT      32.0**

**SECTION      1350 CERTIFICATIONS**

| 1. | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities and 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                as of and for the period covered by the                Report. |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | Date:  August                14, 2007 |   | /s/                DOULGAS J. ANDREA                                                                                                                |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                            |   | **Douglas                J. Andrea**Chairman                of the Board, President, Chief Executive Officer and Corporate                Secretary |
|   |                                            |   |                                                                                                                                                |
|   |                                            |   | /s/                CORISA L. GUIFFRE                                                                                                                |
|   |                                            |   | **Corisa                L. Guiffre**Vice                President, Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Corporate                Secretary         |

----
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.19



Summary of Compensation Package


	
								
	Name
	S.J. Rupert Vessey

	Job Title
	President, Research & Early Development

	Base Salary
	$675,000
	Effective January 8, 2016

	Bonus Target
	70%
	Effective January 8, 2016

	Annual Equity Award
	Stock Options
	Restricted Stock Units
	Effective February 9, 2016

	51,624
	6,731

	Performance Equity
	Stock Options
	Restricted Stock Units
	Effective October 18, 2016

	18,304
	5,369

	Cash Long-Term Incentive Plan
	Threshold
	Target
	Maximum
	Effective December 15, 2015

	$287,500
	$575,000
	$1,150,000

	Severance Benefit
	Lump sum 12 months of base salary
Lump sum 12 months of bonus at target
12 months COBRA benefit at active employee rates, less applicable taxes
	In the event of involuntary termination for reasons other than cause

	"Double Trigger" due to Change in Control
	All severance benefits
Unvested RSUs and Options would fully vest
Change in control payments would be reduced to avoid 280G excise tax, if beneficial to employee
	In the event of position elimination due to change in control

	Financial Planning Benefit
	Up to $15,000 per year
	Reimbursement of reasonable and customary fees associated with financial planning and/or tax preparation/advice

	Acknowledged and agreed:
	On behalf of Celgene Corporation:

	/s/ Rupert Vessey
	February 6, 2017
	/s/ Mark J. Alles
	February 1, 2017

	S.J. Rupert Vessey
	Date
	 
	Mark J. Alles
	Date
# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

REVISED August 5, 2011

July 20, 2011

Before

RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA

, Plaintiff

‐ Appellee,

No. 09

‐ 3967 v.

S TEPHEN W ALTOWER

, Defendant

‐ Appellant. Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of

Illinois, Eastern Division.

No. 08 cr 00186

David H. Coar,

Judge.

O R D E R

The opinion issued in the above

‐ entitled case on July 5, 2011, is hereby

amended as follows:

On page 9, line 27, “30

‐ month” should be changed to “360

‐ month”.
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 200 9-0 819

DCN: SE0395 5 .A 3

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS I NFORMATION

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
250 E Street, SW

Washington, D.C. 20525

202-606-5000 | 800-942-2677 | TTY 800-833-3722

To: Deborah Jeffrey

Inspector General 

From: Jill Graham

Acting Chief Risk Officer 

Subject: High-Dollar Overpayments for the quarter ending March 31, 2020

Date: July 20, 2020

The purpose of this document is to comply with the High-Dollar overpayments reporting 

requirements in Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-123, Appendix C. 

Appendix C requires agency heads to submit reports quarterly on High-Dollar 

overpayments to the Office of Inspector General.

The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) identifies high-dollar 

overpayments through improper payments testing, which is currently completed on a 

rolling basis. CNCS has identified the AmeriCorps, RSVP, FGP, and SCP grant programs as 

susceptible to significant improper payments. The high-dollar overpayment threshold is 

based upon aggregate payments to an individual or entity during a quarter. For the 

reporting period covering 01/01/2020 through 03/31/2020, CNCS did not identify any 

high-dollar overpayments.

This report upholds the agency’s commitment to carrying out the Executive Order goal of 

eliminating payment errors. Reducing improper payments is a key priority for CNCS. We 

continue to monitor programs in order to reduce the amount of overpayments.
46883.

#### IN THE MATTER OF: INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE NO. 1228.

(378 SE2d 115)

Per curiam.

A complaint was filed against Judge Robert J. Noland with the Judicial Qualifications Commission charging him with violation of the Georgia Code of Judicial Conduct Canons 2 and 3.

The complaint arose out of Judge Noland’s conduct in connection with a lawsuit filed by one of the complainants seeking to expunge the special presentment of the Douglas County Grand Jury, returned on August 24, 1987, with reference to the Douglasville/Douglas County Water & Sewer Authority. That complainant alleged that he had two informal discussions with the respondent before the rule-nisi hearing. The first was in the record room at the courthouse, when he mentioned to the respondent that the case was probably going to be filed and asked whether he should contact the court administrator about having a judge from another circuit come in, to which the respondent replied, “No problem.” In the second, the respondent called and asked the complainant to come to his office and suggested to him that the case be dismissed. The complainant testified that he replied that he would have to talk to his client; that he and the district attorney, Frank Winn, agreed to continue the case if the respondent would agree, but that, when he called the respondent to ask for a postponement, the latter refused and said, “You’ve had your chance to try this case, now it’s mine,” then told him to “[b]e here at 1:30.” The respondent further stated that he was anxious to hear who paid the filing cost, and how much, so he could make them pay for this action out of their pockets. He acknowledged that he had been found in violation of these same Canons and suspended from office without pay for 15 days. *In the Matter of: Inquiry Concerning a Judge No. 481,*251 Ga. 524 (307 SE2d 505) (1983).

The Judicial Qualifications Commission found the facts to be as fl alleged in the complaint and that the actions of Judge Noland were in fl violation of Canons 2 and 3A (3). The Commission recommended that fl Judge Noland be suspended from his office as Judge of the Superior fl Courts of the Douglas Judicial Circuit for a period of three months, fl without pay; that he not be permitted to occupy his office physically fl during the period of such suspension; and that he be publicly repri-B manded by this Court. We agree with this finding, but we modify theB recommendation of a three-month suspension to a forty-five day sus-B pension. fl

*147Decided April 6, 1989.

*Robert E. Hall, Hugh M. Dorsey, Jr.,*for Judicial Qualifications Commission.

*Cook & Palmour, Bobby Lee Cook, Edwards & Krontz, Kenneth W. Krontz,*for Noland.

It is therefore ordered that effective May 1, 1989, Judge Robert J. Noland be suspended from office without pay for a period of forty-five days and that during said period he physically remain away from his chambers. We decline to follow the Commission’s recommendation as to the public reprimand.

*All the Justices concur.*