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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1,558,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,737,000
<ALLOWANCES>                               (1,476,000)
<INVENTORY>                                  6,980,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,108,000
<PP&E>                                       2,361,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              26,532,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,906,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                   101,090,000
<OTHER-SE>                                (83,910,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                26,532,000
<SALES>                                     10,275,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,275,000
<CGS>                                       10,315,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               10,315,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            22,852,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (294,000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (22,280,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (22,280,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (22,280,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.48)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.48)
        

</TABLE>
Record of Ex Parte Contacts

Docket No. FAA-2011-1257 Directorate Identifier: 2011-NM-124-AD

With whom outside the FAA has this AD action been discussed (i.e., Design Approval Holder, 

manufacturer, ATA, NBAA, RAA, AOPA, ALPA, GAMA, etc)? (You might need to submit a separate 

record to the Rules Docket. The AD Manual defines “Ex Parte Contacts.”)

ORGANIZATION PERSON 

CONTACTED

DATE RESPONSE

ATA Joe White 5/112011 No response

Boeing B. Linder et al 4/29/2010 Acknowledged

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other/Additional Information:
<PAGE>
                                  EXHIBIT 32.1

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

Pursuant to 18 U. S. C. Section 1350, I, Leonhard Dreimann, hereby certify that,
to the best of my knowledge, the Quarterly Report of Salton, Inc. on Form 10-Q
for the quarterly period ended April 2, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and that the information contained in that Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Salton, Inc.

                                                   By: /s/ Leonhard Dreimann
                                                       ------------------------
                                                       Leonhard Dreimann
                                                       Chief Executive Officer


May 12, 2005

This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required
by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. (the Exchange Act). Such
certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing
under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the
extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Salton, Inc. and will be retained by Salton, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


                                       39
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement of
Simula, Inc. on Form S-3 of our report dated March 26, 1999, appearing in the
Annual Report on Form 10-K of Simula, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1998.
We also consent to the reference to us under the heading "Experts" in the
Prospectus, which is a part of this Registration Statement.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Phoenix, Arizona

May 26, 1999
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**AMERICAN TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, INC.**

 

**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 American Technologies Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended January 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas E. Durkin, III, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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. |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to American Technologies Group, Inc. and will be retained by American Technologies Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 

Date: March 22, 2010

 

|   |      |                                                      |
|--------|-----------|-----------------------------------------------------------|
|   |      | /s/ Thomas E. Durkin, III

 

 

 

  |
|   | President |

   

 

 

25

 

----
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, James B. Hawkins, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Natus Medical Incorporated; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly presentin all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and Ihave disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: November 14, 2005
<PAGE>   1
                                  EXHIBIT 23.1

                CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Forms S-3 No. 333-13353, No. 333-35455, No. 333-45347, No. 333-39019, No.
333-34127, and No. 333-23039) and in the related Prospectuses and in the
Registration Statements (Forms S-8 No. 33-80343, and No. 333-41491) pertaining
to the registration of the 1997 Incentive Plan, the 1995 Incentive Plan, 1995
Nonemployee Director Stock Plan, 1994 Stock Compensation Plan and Misc.
Non-Qualified Stock Options of WavePhore, Inc. of our report dated January 28,
1998, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of WavePhore, Inc.
included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1997.

                                                      /s/ ERNST & YOUNG

Phoenix, Arizona
March 24, 1998
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

November 7, 2008 Revision

Cause number: 01-17-00316-CV

Style: Wes Gilbreath, Jr., Stacey Gilbreath Powell, Elliot Gilbreath, and Mark

Ritter; SignAd, Ltd., SignAd GP, LLC, Ben Nevis West, Ltd., Culcreuch

West, LLC, Big Signs & Leasing #1, Ltd., Big Signs & Leasing #2, Ltd.,

Big Signs & Leasing #3, Ltd., Big Signs & Leasing #4, Ltd., Big Signs &

Leasing #5, Ltd., Big Signs & Leasing #6, Ltd., Big Eastex #1, Ltd.,

Realty Acquisitions & Holdings, LLC, and Big Leasing, LLC v. Lisa R.

Gilbreath Horan, Individually and as Trustee of the Lisa Gilbreath Horan

2001 Irrevocable Trust

Date motion filed*: November 21, 2017

Type of motion: Opposed Fourth Motion to Extend Time to File Appellants’ Brief

Parties filing motion: Company Appellant’s Lead Counsel Lauren B. Harris and Individual 

Appellants’ Lead Counsel Kevin Dubose

Document to be filed: Company and Individual Appellants’ Briefs

Is appeal accelerated? No.

If motion to extend time:

Original due date: September 1, 2017

Number of extensions granted: 3 Current Due Date: December 1, 2017

Date Requested: December 31, 2017 (121 days from original deadline)

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: January 2, 2018.

 No further extensions of time will be granted.

 Denied

 Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: _____________________________________ 

Because appellants’ fourth extension provides extraordinary reasons, including company 

appellants’ lead counsel’s illness, this extension is granted until January 2, 2018, but no

further extensions will be granted. See TEX. R. APP. P. 4.1(a), 10.5(b)(1)(C), 38.6(d).

Judge’s signature: /s/ Laura C. Higley

 

Date: November 28, 2017
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 ________________________

 No. 12-10076 

Non-Argument Calendar

 ________________________

 D.C. Docket No. 4:99-cr-10035-KMM-3

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JERMAINE MATHIS, 

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

 Appeal from the United States District Court

 for the Southern District of Florida

 ________________________

(January 29, 2013)

Before WILSON, MARTIN and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Case: 12-10076 Date Filed: 01/29/2013 Page: 1 of 3 
Jermaine Mathis appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2) motion to reduce his sentence based on Amendment 750 to the

Sentencing Guidelines. Mathis was sentenced as a career offender pursuant to

U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. On appeal, he concedes the limited scope of § 3582(c)(2)

proceedings, but urges this Court to review the drug quantity findings at

sentencing in the interest of justice.1

“[W]e review de novo the district court’s legal conclusions regarding the

scope of its authority under the Sentencing Guidelines.” United States v. Moore,

541 F.3d 1323, 1326 (11th Cir. 2008). A district court may not reduce a

defendant’s term of imprisonment unless the defendant’s sentence was based upon

a sentencing range that the Sentencing Commission subsequently lowered, the

district court considers the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, and the reduction is

consistent with applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing

Commission. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). 

 Mathis’s sentence was based on his career-offender enhancement, and

Amendment 750 therefore had no effect on his sentencing range under § 4B1.1. 

See Moore, 541 F.3d at 1327 (holding that when a defendant is sentenced as a

 Mathis requests that, in the alternative to granting a sentence reduction, this Court 1

reopen his prior 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, which was denied in 2007. Mathis may not

use his § 3582(c)(2) motion to reopen his § 2255 motion to vacate. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h).

2

Case: 12-10076 Date Filed: 01/29/2013 Page: 2 of 3 
career offender, the sentence is “based on” the guideline ranges applicable to

career offenders under § 4B1.1, not the levels set forth in § 2D1.1). Moreover, the

district court was not permitted to change any of the original sentencing

calculations in the § 3582(c)(2) proceedings except those affected by a retroactive

guideline amendment. See United States v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 781 (11th Cir.

2000). Therefore, Mathis is ineligible for relief under § 3582(c)(2), and the

district court did not err in denying his motion. 

AFFIRMED.

3

Case: 12-10076 Date Filed: 01/29/2013 Page: 3 of 3
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK , NC 27711

OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND STAN DARDS 

### MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: FROM:

TO: Extension of Comment Period for 1Oth Conference on Air Quality Modeling George M Bridgers , Model Clear inghouse Director

### &~~**~** Air Quality Modeling Group , C439-01 Docket#: EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0056

In the January 31,2012 Federal Notice publication regarding the lOth Conference on Air Quality Modeling (Modeling Conference), it was announced that the public comment period on how the Agency determines and applies air quality models and on material presented at the Modeling Conference would remain open through April 16, 2012. In consideration ofthe extensive amount of material provided for review just ahead of and presented at the Modeling Conference , we are extending the comment period by two weeks to allow more time for commenters to assemble and provide their constructive comments , recommendations , and feedback. With the submission ofthis memorandum to the Docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0056) , the comment period for the 1Oth Conference on Air Quality Modeling is herby extended to April 30 , 2012. All comments should be submitted to the Docket by the close of business on Apri l 30 and per the instructions that were provided in the Federa l Register publication.
Ifthere are any questions regarding this comment period extension, please contact George Bridgers ofEPA's Air Quality Modeling Group at (919) 541-5563 or bridgers.george @ epa.gov.

Recycled/Recyclable • Printed wnh Vegetable OU Based Inks on 1 00% Recy cled Paper ( 40% Postconsumer)
No. 69371.

#### Montgomery Ward & Company *v.*United States,

protests 63/15503-13712 and 64/1394-14177 (Chicago).

Opinion by

Oliver, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of nonelectrical miniature railroad equipment, not chiefly used for the amusement of children, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS
OF OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1,186,265
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   75,935
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    261,709
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,746,132
<PP&E>                                       8,058,485
<DEPRECIATION>                                 354,062
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,960,070
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,503,476
<BONDS>                                      3,975,444
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        378
<COMMON>                                        21,770
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,922,590
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,960,070
<SALES>                                        734,765
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               858,091
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,197,138
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,527,381
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,866,428)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,868,028)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,868,028)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.18)
        

</TABLE>
August 26, 1957

No. 61186.

protest 234467-K.

#### Herman D. Steel Co. and Morris Friedman *v.*United States,

C. D. 1855. Plaintiffs’ application for rehearing denied.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION FURNISHED 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 report of SWS Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended September 24, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Stacy M. Hodges, 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, to my knowledge 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |  |  |                        
|----------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Date: September 2, 2011 |  |  |  | /S/ Stacy M. Hodges    
|                        |  |  |  | Stacy M. Hodges        
|                        |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q/A pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of
Regulation S-K and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q/A for purposes
of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such
filing.
Before the Third Division,

June 30, 1948

No. 52440.

protests 50290-K, etc. (Los Angeles).

#### Kokusai Suisan Kabushiki Kaisha et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is similar in all material respects to the frozen frogs the subject of *Pacific Trading Co.*v. *United States*(8 Cust. Ct. 221, C. D. 610), the claim at 10 percent under- paragraph 1558 was sustained.
J

~~ Eu St ~ rss UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.0 20460



# ~
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 6724

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. DOUGLAS GERRELLE PITTMAN , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro

. William L. Osteen, Jr. , District Judge. ( 1:16

- cr - 00020

- WO

- 1; 1:18

- cv 00611

- WO

- JEP )

Submitted : December 29, 2021 Decided: January 19, 2022

Before NIEMEYER and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges , and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Matthew McGavock Robinson, ROBINSON & BRANDT, PSC, Covington, Kentucky, for Appellant.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Douglas Gerrelle Pittman seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 225 5 motion . The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
i ssues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)( B ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists c ould find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.
Davis , 137 S. Ct. 759, 773

- 74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (201 2) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000))

. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Pittman has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argumen t would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
No. 62894.

#### Hershey Company *v.*United States,

protest 58/3090 (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is in chief value of steel, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.