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


 
<ARTICLE>          5

<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31,
1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

                   
<S>                       <C>                                          
<PERIOD-TYPE>             3-MOS

<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                                SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                                   OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                                     DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                                             3,487,171
<SECURITIES>                                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                              0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                               0
<INVENTORY>                                                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                   3,657,386
<PP&E>                                                               333,539
<DEPRECIATION>                                                      (133,076)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                     3,873,418
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                167,298
<BONDS>                                                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                                0
<COMMON>                                                              32,340
<OTHER-SE>                                                         3,669,390
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                       3,873,418
<SALES>                                                               29,903
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                      29,903
<CGS>                                                                 23,510
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                         23,510
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                     577,311
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                     5,174
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                     (531,077)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                 (531,077)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                                        (531,077)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                          (0.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                          (0.23)
        


</TABLE>
## NUMBER 13 - 11 - 00 787 - CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE LORENZO YBARRA, JR.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.



## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Rodriguez , Benavides , and Perkes Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 1
Relator, Lorenzo Ybarra, Jr., filed a petition for writ of mandamus in th e above

cause on December 21 , 2011, contending that the trial court erred in entering a judgment nunc pro tunc after the expiratio n of its plenary power

. The trial court held that a clerical error existed in the divorce decree wherein it provided for a conveyance of .067 acres of land instead of 0.67 acres of land, the latter being the entirety of the parcel of property. Th e Court requested and received a response to the petition for writ of

1 See T EX

. R. A PP . P. 52.8(d) (―When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so.‖); T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opi nions and memorandum opinions).mandamus from the real part y in interest, Dora Aguiar, formerly known as Dora Lopez

Ybarra. The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of
mandamus and the response t hereto , is of the opinion that relator ha s not shown himself entitled to the relief sough t

. See, e.g., Escobar v. Escobar , 711 S.W.2d 230, 231 (Tex. 1986) (concluding that an error in the amount of acreage awarded to a claimant was a clerical error subject to correction by judgment nunc pro tunc) ; Davis v. Davis , 647 S.W.2d 781, 785 (Tex. Civ. App.

— Austin 1983, no writ) ( concluding that a n error in the number of lots utilized to describe a residence was a clerical error subject to correction by nunc pro tunc ); see also Sam Eng, Inc. v. Barnett Drywall & Supply, Inc ., No. C14

- 87

- 00861

- CV , 1988 Tex. App. LEXIS 956 , at **5

– 6 (Tex. App.

— Houston [ 14th Dist. ] May 5, 1988 , no writ) (not designated for publication) (same). Accordingly, t he petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM
D elivered and filed the 20th day of January, 2012

.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 23-3152

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Leonard Fisher, also known as Leonard Fisher, Jr.

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern

 ____________

 Submitted: May 1, 2024

Filed: May 6, 2024

[Unpublished]

____________

Before GRUENDER, ERICKSON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Leonard Fisher appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after a jury

found him guilty of a firearm charge. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has

1The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Southern District of Iowa.
filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the

substantive reasonableness of the sentence.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not impose a

substantively unreasonable sentence, as the court properly considered the factors

listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and did not err in weighing the relevant factors. See

United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (substantive

reasonableness of sentence reviewed for abuse of discretion; abuse of discretion

occurs when court fails to consider relevant factor, gives significant weight to

improper or irrelevant factor, or commits clear error of judgment in weighing

appropriate factors).

We have reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S.

75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we

affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________

-2-
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6701
IN RE: JULIAN EDWARD ROCHESTER,

Petitioner.
On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus. Submitted: June 20, 2007 Decided: July 30, 2007 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Julian Edward Rochester, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Julian E. Rochester petitions this court for a writ of mandamus. He seeks to appeal the district court’s refusal, in accordance with a prefiling injunction, to process a petition for writ of mandamus that Rochester attempted to file in that court. Rochester also appears to seek an order compelling the South Carolina state courts to hear a postconviction review petition and to set aside two state court judgments. Mandamus is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary situations. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In re Beard , 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). The party seeking mandamus relief carries the heavy burden of showing that he has no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires and that his entitlement to such relief is clear and indisputable. Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc. , 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980). Rochester has failed to make the requisite showing. We accordingly deny the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the mandamus petition. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED
From: terryandjanet826@sbcglobal.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:40:04 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Terry Hartman

Lawton, OK 73501
From: jerry.jdjones@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:11:18 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am very frustrated and concerned with the increasing role the government is playing in my life - and

related mandates. NOT acceptable!!

I am asking in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive mandate that all

"contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance with no co-pay to

patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for any organizations

that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I strongly oppose

the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and devices that I

oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Jerry Jones

Green Mountain Falls, CO 80819
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED  STATEMENTS
OF INCOME OF JOURNAL  REGISTER COMPANY FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 1999, AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                   1,000
       
<S>                            <C>   
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                               9,219  
<SECURITIES>                             0   
<RECEIVABLES>                       61,211    
<ALLOWANCES>                         5,473   
<INVENTORY>                          8,277   
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    80,200   
<PP&E>                             231,962   
<DEPRECIATION>                     133,316    
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     667,014    
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               51,348    
<BONDS>                            762,425
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
<PREFERRED>                              0   
<COMMON>                               484     
<OTHER-SE>                        (232,745)   
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       667,014  
<SALES>                                  0  
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   109,902 
<CGS>                                    0 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       65,572 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     7,232     
<LOSS-PROVISION>                       899   
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  13,394   
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     13,287  
<INCOME-TAX>                         5,347  
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  7,940  
<DISCONTINUED>                           0   
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          0   
<CHANGES>                                0   
<NET-INCOME>                         7,940
<EPS-PRIMARY>                         0.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                         0.17
                               



</TABLE>
No. 418, Misc.

#### Ward *v.*New York et al.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES

TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING

AND DISPOSITION THER E OF IF

FILED.

CANDIA VANESSA WILL IAMS

,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D23

- 278

LT Case No. 16

- 2022

- CA

- 0 02295

JI M FULLER

, D/B/A CLERK OF COU RT,

RONNIE FUSSELL

, D/B/A CLERK OF COURT,

ABRAHAM C. SOOD

, JR. D/B/A JUDGE

, ADRIAN G. SOUD

, D/B/A JUDGE

, JOHN GUY

, D/B/A JUDGE

, W. GREGG MCCAULIE

, D/B/A

JUDGE

, WADDELL A. WALLACE

, III

, D/B/A JUDGE

, CHARLES O. M I T CHELL

, JR

, D /B/A JUDGE,

FREDRICK B. TYGART

, D/B/ A JUDGE, MARK

MAHON

, D/B/A CHI EF JUDGE,· MICHAEL WILLIAMS

, D/B/A SHERIFF, JOHN RUTHERFORD

, D/B/A

SHERIFF, MARCIA MORALES HOWARD

, D/B/A/

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE, TIMOTHY

CORRIGAN

, D/B/A/ CHIE F UNITE D STATES

DI STR ICT JUDGE, ELIZABETH WARREN

, D/B/A

UNIT ED STATES DISTRICT CLERK OF COURT,

U.S. MARS HAL SERVICE MIDDLE DISTRICT

FLORIDA, U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,

FANNIE MAE, DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST

COMPANY, WELLS FARGO HOME MOR TGAGE,

CITIFI N ANC IAL SE RVICES, DAVID P. TROTTI,

GLENN A. ZIEGLER, KIMBERLY A HUMPHREY,

MERS MORTGAGE

, ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION

SYSTEM, ARLENE B. NEWMAN, ARANTES M.

RODRIGUES, SIDNEY E. LEWIS, JOHN A. VAN NESS,2

D UV AL COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR, AS S TATE OF

FLORIDA

,

A ppelle e s

. /

Opinion filed March 7, 2023

Appeal from t he Circuit Court

f or Du val County

, Marianne Aho , Judge.

Candia Vanessa W illiams,

Jacksonville, pro se.

Lawr ence J. Bernard, of Berna rd &

Shemer, P.A., Jacksonville, for

Appellee

, Sidney E. Le wi s.

No A ppearance for R emaining

Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED

. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.315 (a).

SILBERMAN

, M ORRIS

, KELLY , P ATR ICI A J

. , and SMITH

, A NDREA T.,

A sso ciat e Judges , Concur.
No. 214, Misc.

#### Cohen *v.*Louisiana State Bar Association.

*G. Wray Gill*for petitioner.

*John Pat. Little*for respondent.

Supreme Court of Louisiana. Certiorari denied.
From: lawfor@shaw.ca

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 1:40:46 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Lawrence Forbes

Everett, WA 98201
---

CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
  PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Daniel Hunter, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
  Officer of Encore Clean Energy, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify 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 my knowledge:

| | (i)  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company, for the fiscal quarter
      ended September 30, 2004, and to which this certification is attached as
      Exhibit 32.1 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | ---- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |      |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                                              

| | By:    | /s/ Daniel Hunter                
| | ------ | ---------------------------------
| |        |                                  
| | Name:  | DANIEL HUNTER                    
| | Title: | Chief Executive Officer and Chief
| |        | Financial Officer                
| |        |                                  
| | Date:  | November 22, 2004                

A signed original of this written statement required by
  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company
  and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
  Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-QSB to which
  it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
  and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under
  the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made
  before or after the date of the Form 10-QSB), irrespective of any general incorporation
  language contained in such filing.

---
ACCEPTED14-15-00207-CVFOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALSHOUSTON, TEXAS3/27/2015 4:21:20 PMCHRISTOPHER PRINECLERK
EXHIBIT 32.2



inTEST CORPORATION



In connection with the Quarterly Report of inTEST Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Hugh T. Regan, Jr., Secretary, Treasurer and 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:
(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
Date:	August 14, 2003

/s/ Hugh T. Regan, Jr.
Hugh T. Regan, Jr.
Secretary, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer