alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>
    
<ARTICLE>                                               5 
<CIK>                                           0001037417
<NAME>      SYSCOMM INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                             527,496
<SECURITIES>                                        84,375
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,066,365
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (88,878)
<INVENTORY>                                      8,475,856
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                33,296,153
<PP&E>                                           2,319,131
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (594,639)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  35,362,765
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           23,162,912
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            50,172
<OTHER-SE>                                      12,094,232
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    35,362,765
<SALES>                                         28,062,283
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                28,062,283
<CGS>                                           25,248,026
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   25,248,026
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,005,201
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     9,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 247,794
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    563,768
<INCOME-TAX>                                       247,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                316,768
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       316,768
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .06
        

</TABLE>
No. 60198.

protests 255516-K and 255671-K (New York).

#### Schneider Bros. & Co. Inc. *v*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the wooden boxes or eases are similar in all material respects to the merchandise the subject of Abstract 59812 and that the issues are the same in all material respects as those the subject of *John P. Herber & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 193, C. D. 1519), the protests were dismissed, and the matters were remanded to a single judge sitting in reappraisement for determination of the value of the merchandise in the manner provided by law (28 U. S. C. § 2636 (d)).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

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

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-04-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-01-2000
<CASH>                                          24,483
<SECURITIES>                                       284
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,575
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,178
<INVENTORY>                                      8,396
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                67,308
<PP&E>                                          25,251
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,717
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 103,842
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           27,593
<BONDS>                                         93,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     13,457
<COMMON>                                           246
<OTHER-SE>                                    (94,611)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   103,842
<SALES>                                         78,898
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                78,898
<CGS>                                           32,630
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   32,870
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                23,465
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,312
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,810
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,403
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             12,217
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    170
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,387
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed April 20, 2022.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-1630

Lower Tribunal No. 20-0202-K

________________

Laura Gayle, etc.,

Appellant,

vs.

First Protective Insurance Company, etc.,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, Timothy J. 

Koenig, Judge.

Janssen, Siracusa & Keegan PLLC, and John M. Siracusa, for 

appellant.

Briscoe Ortiz Zuluaga PLLC, and Bianca R. Zuluaga; Russo 

Appellate Firm, P.A., and Elizabeth K. Russo and Paulo R. Lima, for 

appellee.

Before EMAS, LOGUE, and LINDSEY, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.
2

Affirmed.
Before the Second Division,

January 29, 1969

No. P69/32.

protest 66/2947 (New York).

#### Gehrig, Hoban & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of turret punch press and parts thereof similar in all material respects to the merchandise the subject of *T.D. Downing Co.*v. *United States*(60 Cust. Ct. 345, C.D. 3386), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Footnotes

Can be installed as Non-direct vent

May be installed as Direct Vent

Direct or Non-Direct Vent

Can be installed as Non-direct vent (Venting Only)
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 24-1027

___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v. Willie Jay Lee lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa

____________ Submitted: July 24, 2024 Filed: August 9, 2024 [Unpublished]

____________ Before KELLY, GRASZ, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Willie Lee appeals the sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pled guilty to a drug offense. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief

1 The Honorable Rebecca Goodgame Ebinger, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting claims of ineffective

assistance of counsel. Lee has also filed a motion for appointment of new counsel on appeal. We decline to consider Lee’s ineffective-assistance claim in this direct appeal. Ineffective-assistance claims are normally deferred for proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, barring exceptional circumstances. See United States v. Looking Cloud , 419 F.3d 781, 788-89 (8th Cir. 2005). We conclude there are no such circumstances in this case, as the record is not sufficiently developed to decide the merits of Lee’s claim. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez , 449 F.3d 824, 826-27 (8th Cir. 2006) (stating ineffective-assistance claims are “usually best litigated in collateral proceedings” where a record can be properly developed). We have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw, deny Lee’s motion for appointment of new counsel, and affirm.

______________________________

-2-
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-20-00349-CR

CALLIE RENEE INMAN

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the

56th District Court of Galveston County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 14-CR-0611

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

March 10, 2022
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

ORDER DISMISSING § 2254 PETITION

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

PAGE -1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

RICHARD LIONEL DYSON,

Petitioner,

v.

REED HOLTGEERT,

Respondent.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. C05-1500-MJP

ORDER DISMISSING § 2254

PETITION WITHOUT PREJUDICE

The Court, having reviewed petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, respondent’s

answer thereto, the Report and Recommendation of Mary Alice Theiler, United States Magistrate

Judge, and the remaining record, does hereby find and Order:

(1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation;

(2) Petitioner’s federal habeas petition and this action are DISMISSED, without

prejudice, for failure to exhaust state remedies; and,

(3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to petitioner, to counsel for

respondent, and to Judge Theiler.

DATED this _27th _ day of ___February____________________, 2006.

A

Marsha J. Pechman

U.S. District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01500-MJP Document 15 Filed 02/27/06 Page 1 of 1
From: twilight485@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:40:25 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,

Twila Mannix

Harrisburg, PA 17113
From: kminty@juno.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:43:23 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,

Keith Minty

North Las Vegas, NV 89032
REVIEWS OF STATE REGULATIONS, STANDARDS, AND PRACTICES RELATED TO THE USE OF COAL COMBUSTION PRODUCTS

Pennsylvania Florida Texas North Dakota

The four attached state re views are associated with file set EPA-HQ-RCRA-2009-0640-1739
EXHIBIT 35.1

CERTIFICATION OF SERVICER PURSUANT TO ITEM 1123 OF
REGULATION AB

March 27,
2009

CIT Funding
Company, LLC
1 CIT Drive
Livingston, NJ 07039

Manufacturers
and Traders Trust Company
25 S. Charles Street, 16th Floor
Baltimore, Maryland 21201Attn.: Corporate Trust Services

M&T Trust
Company of Delaware
1220 N. Market Street, Suit 200
Wilmington, Delaware 19801

| |     |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     | 
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
| | Re: | Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as
 of April 1, 2008,
 among CIT Equipment Collateral 2008-VT1, as Trust, CIT
 Funding Company, LLC, as Depositor, and CIT Financial USA,Inc., in its individual capacity and as Servicer (the Agreement). | 

I,
Mark A. Carlson, Senior Vice President  Corporate Treasury of CIT Financial
USA, Inc. (the Servicer), hereby certify that:

A
review of the activities of the Servicer during the period from May 14, 2008
through December 31, 2008 (the Reporting Period) and of the performance of the
Servicer under the Agreement has been made under my supervision; and

To
the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled its
obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the
Reporting Period, except as described in Appendix B to the Servicers
Report on Assessment of Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria Pursuant
to Item 1122 of Regulation AB.

| |                                      |                                                       | 
| | ------------------------------------ | ----------------------------------------------------- | 
| | CIT Financial USA, Inc., as Servicer |                                                      
| |                                      |                                                       | 
| | By:                                  | /s/
 Mark A. Carlson                                  | 
| |                                      |                                                       | 
| |                                      | Name:  Mark
 A. Carlson                               | 
| |                                      | Title:    Senior
 Vice President  Corporate Treasury | 

-56-

---
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T G ERA RD O G A RN I CA - V A RG A S, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 11- 72576 A ge nc yN o. A 097- 707- 983 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d F e bruary11, 2013 ** B e f o r e : F E RN A N D E Z , T A S H I M A , an dW A R D L A W , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . G e r ar do G arni c a - V ar ga s , ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of M e xi c o, pe t i t i ons pr o s e f or re vi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ order di sm i ss i ng hi s app ea l fr om an i m m i g r a t i o n j u d g e ’ s r e m o v a l o r d e r . We d i s m i s s th e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. 

# FI LED

FEB 14 2 013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 72576 2 B ec ause G arni ca -V ar gas does notchal l enge thathe w as conv i ct ed of an aggravat ed fe l on y, w e l ac k j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew the cont ent i on thatthe agency ab u s e dits d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g h is r e q u e s t f o rac o n tin u an c e to s e e kp o s tconv i ct i on re l i ef

, because i tdo es no tconst i tut e aqu es t i on of l aw or const i tut i on al c la im th a t w o u lde s tab lis h o u rju r is d ic tio n . See 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( D ) ; see a l so M al i l i a v. H

older , 6 3 2 F .3 d5 9 8 , 6 0 4 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 1 1 ) ( d e s p ite th e 8 U .S .C . § 1252( a ) ( 2) ( C ) j ur i s di c t i ona l bar , unde r8 U . S . C . § 1252( a ) ( 2) ( D ) the c ourtr e t a i ns j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew the deni alof a c on t i nu ance thati s bas ed on an error of l aw ). P E T I T I O N F O R R E V I E W D I S M I S S E D .
EXHIBIT 32.2

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

In  connection  with the  Annual  Report  of  KRYPTIC  ENTERTAINMENT  INC.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-K for the period ended March 31, 2009,  as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Shan
Qiang,  Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1350,  as adopted  pursuant  to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,
that:

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 the Company.


                                    /s/ Shan Qiang
                                    --------------------------------------------
Date: June 1, 2009                  Shan Qiang
                                    Secretary Treasurer and Director
                                    (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
No. 64540.

#### Aluminum Housewares Corporation *v.*United States,

protest 58/18287 (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of microscopes, valued under $25 each, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002,
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

                  In connection with the Quarterly Report of Alkermes, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
James M. Frates, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,18 U.S.C. Section 1350 that, to my
knowledge:

         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.

                                        /s/  James M. Frates
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        James M. Frates
                                        Chief Financial Officer
                                        February 12, 2004
No. 61018.

protest 281738-K (New York).

#### Manca, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliveb, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of heating stages for microscopes, which are properly classifiable under paragraph 360, as modified, *sypra,*for other scientific and laboratory instruments, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
February 19, 1962

No. 66492.

#### Cajo Trading Co. and Williams, Clarke Co. *v.*United States,

protests 60/30840 and 60/4471 (B).

Protests dismissed January 17,1962. (Not published.) Plaintiffs’ application for rehearing granted.