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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                             327
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,314
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (799)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                22,936
<PP&E>                                          23,006
<DEPRECIATION>                                (12,891)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  34,839
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,365
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      5,445
<COMMON>                                        37,104
<OTHER-SE>                                    (20,034)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    34,839
<SALES>                                         82,702
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                82,702
<CGS>                                         (75,229)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 (75,229)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 145
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,328
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,931
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,397
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,397
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .57
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .52


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-1615

GEORGE NAGIB ARMANIOUS, 

 Petitioner, 

 v. 

MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, 

 Respondent. 

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals.

Submitted: December 31, 2008 Decided: January 27, 2009 

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. 

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Samy Beshay, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Gregory G. 

Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, Francis W. Fraser, Senior 

Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED 

STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

 George Nagib Armanious, a native and citizen of Egypt, 

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s 

denial of his requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and 

protection under the Convention Against Torture. 

 Armanious first challenges the determination that he 

failed to establish his eligibility for asylum. To obtain 

reversal of a determination denying eligibility for relief, an 

alien “must show that the evidence he presented was so 

compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find the 

requisite fear of persecution.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 

478, 483-84 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of record and 

conclude that Armanious fails to show that the evidence compels 

a contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the relief that 

he seeks. 

 Additionally, we uphold the denial of Armanious’s 

request for withholding of removal. “Because the burden of 

proof for withholding of removal is higher than for asylum--even 

though the facts that must be proved are the same--an applicant 

who is ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for 

withholding of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).” 

Camara v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). Because 

2 
3 

Armanious failed to show that he is eligible for asylum, he 

cannot meet the higher standard for withholding of removal. 

 Accordingly, we deny the petition for review.∗ 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. 

PETITION DENIED

 ∗

 Armanious failed to raise any challenges to the denial of 

his request for protection under the Convention Against Torture. 

He has therefore waived appellate review of this claim. See

Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 189 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004) 

(finding that failure to raise a challenge in an opening brief 

results in abandonment of that challenge); Edwards v. City of 

Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999) (same).
##### 



Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE
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 PharmChem, Inc. (the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Joseph W.
Halligan, 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; 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: August 14, 2002



| | /s/ Joseph W. Halligan
Joseph W. Halligan
Chief Executive Officer
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------
Exhibit 99.4

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Form 10-KSB filed by Cancer Therapeutics,  Inc. (the
"Company")as  filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date
hereof (the "Periodic Report"), I, Robert Oldham, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company,  certify,  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,
that:

(1)   The Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)   The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Company.

      Date as of August 29, 2006
                                      By       /s/ Robert Oldham
                                        ---------------------------------
                                        Robert Oldham
                                        Chief Executive Officer
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 20-2349

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Victor M. De Santiago

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Joplin

 ____________

 Submitted: January 15, 2021

Filed: January 22, 2021

[Unpublished]

____________

Before COLLOTON, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Victor De Santiago appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he

pleaded guilty to drug offenses, pursuant to a plea agreement containing an appeal

1The Honorable M. Douglas Harpool, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri.
waiver. His counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

challenging the reasonableness of the sentence, and has moved to withdraw.

We conclude that the appeal waiver is valid, enforceable, and applicable to the

issues raised in this appeal. See United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir.

2010) (stating that this court reviews de novo the validity and applicability of an

appeal waiver); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc)

(stating that an appeal waiver will be enforced if the appeal falls within the scope of

the waiver, the defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into the plea agreement

and the waiver, and enforcing the waiver would not result in a miscarriage of justice).

Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the

appeal waiver. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we dismiss

the appeal.

______________________________

-2-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           3,037
<SECURITIES>                                     5,204
<RECEIVABLES>                                   23,625
<ALLOWANCES>                                       952
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                36,047
<PP&E>                                          32,306
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,881
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  92,938
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,997
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            93
<OTHER-SE>                                      32,496
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    92,938
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                57,043
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   52,913
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,650
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,908
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,480
<INCOME-TAX>                                       946
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,480
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,534
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           1,235
<SECURITIES>                                    10,017
<RECEIVABLES>                                   21,545
<ALLOWANCES>                                       718
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                36,337
<PP&E>                                          29,822
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,009
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  90,216
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,285
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            92
<OTHER-SE>                                      29,972
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    90,216
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                27,696
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   26,165
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   764
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    33
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 974
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    767
<INCOME-TAX>                                       197
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                767
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       570
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Order entered May 1 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 15 - 00177 - CR No. 05 - 15 - 00178 - CR CHARNEEQUA ANETASI S HERRIA HUNTER, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F13 - 53802 - R , F14 - 59240 - R



### O RDER The Court ORDERS the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and recommendations and determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeals, whether appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeals. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8( b ). If the trial court cannot obtain appella nt’s presence at the hearing, the trial court shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State , 742 S.W.2d 708 (Tex. App.

– Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court is ORDERED to take such mea sures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which may include appointment of new counsel.We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include

written findings and recommendations, to this Court within TH IRTY DAYS of the date of this order. The appeals are ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The appeals shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are received, whichever is earlier.

/s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheet of Percon Incorporated and Subsidiaries as of June 30
1998 and the related consolidated statements of income and cash flows for the
six months in the period ended June 30 1998 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           3,313
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,072
<ALLOWANCES>                                        86
<INVENTORY>                                      4,370
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                14,545
<PP&E>                                           4,604
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,019)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  18,521
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,665
<BONDS>                                            699
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,201
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,563
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    18,521
<SALES>                                         14,151
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,151
<CGS>                                            7,404
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,404
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  22
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,827
<INCOME-TAX>                                       691
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,136
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,136
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.28
        

</TABLE>
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND 

DETERMINATION AS TO ALLEGED VIOLATIONS 

OF SUPERVISED RELEASE - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROY COLUMBUS GOLD, III.,

Defendant.

Case No. CR05-391-RSM

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT 

AND DETERMINATION AS TO 

ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF 

SUPERVISED RELEASE

INTRODUCTION

I conducted a hearing on alleged violations of supervised release in this case on September 

19, 2012. The defendant appeared pursuant to a warrant issued in this case. The United States 

was represented by Sarah Vogel, and defendant was represented by Peter Camiel. Also present 

was U.S. Probation Officer Leona Nguyen. The proceedings were digitally recorded.

SENTENCE AND PRIOR ACTION

Defendant was sentenced on September 22, 2006, by the Honorable Ricardo S. Martinez for 

Conspiracy to Distribute Cocaine and Cocaine Base. He received 36 months detention and 5 

years supervised release.

On February 28, 2012, a violation report and warrant request was submitted alleging Mr. 

Gold had violated the conditions of supervision by failing to report for drug testing as directed,
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND 

DETERMINATION AS TO ALLEGED VIOLATIONS 

OF SUPERVISED RELEASE - 2

using cocaine, failure to attend substance abuse counseling as directed, and gambling and 

entering gambling establishments. The Court authorized a warrant. On April 27, 2012, the Court 

sentenced Mr. Gold to a custodial term of 45 days and 3 years of supervised release. 

Additionally, the Court imposed a condition requiring Mr. Gold to reside in a Residential 

Reentry Center for up to 120 days.

PRESENTLY ALLEGED VIOLATIONS

In a petition dated August 17, 2012, U.S. Probation Officer Andrew J. Lorenzen alleged that 

defendant violated the following conditions of supervised release:

1. Failing to report change in residence as directed, on or about August 12, 2012, in 

violation of standard condition number 6.

2. Failing to report to the probation officer as directed, on or about August 13, 2012, 

in violation of standard condition number 2.

FINDINGS FOLLOWING EVIDENTIARY HEARING

Defendant admitted the above violations, waived any hearing as to whether they occurred, 

and was informed the matter would be set for a disposition hearing October 5, 2012 at 10:00 a.m. 

before District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez.

RECOMMENDED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

Based upon the foregoing, I recommend the court find that defendant has violated the

conditions of his supervised release as alleged above, and conduct a disposition hearing.

DATED this 19th day of September, 2012.

A

DEAN BRETT

United States Magistrate Judge
**Exhibit 99.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT**

I, Roderick de Greef, Chief Financial Officer of Cardiac Science, Inc. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

| (1)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2002 (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 780(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.

Date:  November 14, 2002

  
 
  
 
/s/ RODERICK DE GREEF

 
  
**Roderick de Greef Chief Financial Officer**

  
 
 

 

  |
Before the Third Division,

May 25, 1965

No. 69321.

#### The Vivadent Corporation *v.*United States,

protests 62/9954, etc. (Boston).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of shade guides similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Vivadent Corporation*v. *United States*(53 Cust. Ct. 190, C.D. 2494), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
# Fourth Court of App eals

San Antonio, Texas

January 5, 2017

No. 04

- 16

- 00756

- CR

In re Hisidoro D. RAMON, JR.

,

From the 198th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas

Trial Court No. B15

- 33

Honorable M. Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Relator's motion for extension of time to file motion for rehearing is hereby GRANTED.

Time is extended to January 20, 2017.

It is so ORDERED on January 5, 2017.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

______________________________ _

Keith E. Hottle , Clerk