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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM SEC FORM 10-Q FOR THE
PERIOD ENDED APRIL 2, 2000, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-03-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-02-2000
<CASH>                                          51,490
<SECURITIES>                                    12,869
<RECEIVABLES>                                  624,365
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (60,972)
<INVENTORY>                                    548,273
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,256,144
<PP&E>                                       1,269,480
<DEPRECIATION>                                 596,058
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,748,333
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          536,639
<BONDS>                                        991,653
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,796
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,102,605
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,748,333
<SALES>                                        659,681
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               659,681
<CGS>                                          471,271
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  595,257
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (4,170)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,081
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 50,513
<INCOME-TAX>                                    14,649
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             35,864
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    35,684
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .62
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .62


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

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 Annual Report of Zayo Group, LLC (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year
ended June 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dan Caruso, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.



|                   |  |  |  |     |  |                        
|------------------ |  |  |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Date: May 15, 2012 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Dan Caruso         
|                   |  |  |  |     |  | Dan Caruso             
|                   |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-30372

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

VINCENT THOMAS

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:07-CR-101-1

Before WIENER, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Defendant-Appellant Vincent Thomas pleaded guilty pursuant to a written

plea agreement to distribution of five grams or more of crack cocaine and

distribution of 50 grams or more of crack cocaine. He was sentenced to the

statutory minimum of 240 months in prison. Thomas asserts that the district

court, in denying his request for appointment of a Federal Public Defender

(FPD), effectively deprived him of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel,

resulting in a constitutional “structural error” mandating reversal of his

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 2, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-30372

2

conviction. Relying in part on the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v.

Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (2006), Thomas argues that because a “structural

error” occurred, no additional prejudice or harm need be shown.

Gonzalez-Lopez is not applicable to the instant case. The court did not

deny Thomas his counsel of choice; it merely denied his request for new

appointed counsel. Moreover, unlike the defendant in Gonzalez-Lopez, Thomas

sought to have his retained counsel removed from the case and was not seeking

to be represented by any particular retained attorney. Additionally, the

government conceded in Gonzalez-Lopez that the trial court had erroneously

deprived the defendant of his right to counsel of his choosing. Gonzalez-Lopez,

548 U.S. at 148. The government makes no such concession here. Neither does

Thomas assert that he was deprived of counsel of his choice. Rather, he merely

contends that he was entitled to new appointed counsel because he was

dissatisfied with the services of retained counsel.

Thomas’s claims do not amount to a deprivation of counsel of choice as

contemplated by the Court in Gonzalez-Lopez. At most, they amount to

garden-variety claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Thomas, however,

does not allege that counsel was ineffective under Strickland v. Washington, 466

U.S. 668 (1984), or that his plea was involuntary, unknowing, or the result of

incompetent advice of counsel.

To the extent that Thomas suggests that there was a basis for

withdrawing his guilty plea, such a contention is without merit. Thomas fails

to show a fair and just reason for withdrawal of his guilty plea. See United

States v. Powell, 354 F.3d 362, 370 (5th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted).

Furthermore, our review of the rearraignment hearing reveals no basis for

withdrawal of the plea. See Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 244 (1969).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 76 (Friday, April 20, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 19918]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-7571]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-416-002]


Northwest Pipeline Corporation; Notice of Compliance Filing

April 13, 2007.
    Take notice that on April 10, 2007, Northwest Pipeline Corporation 
(Northwest) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third 
Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to be effective 
January 1, 2007.

2nd Substitute Thirty-First Revised Sheet No. 5
Substitute Third Revised Sheet No. 5-B
2nd Substitute Sixth Revised Sheet No. 5-C
2nd Substitute First Revised Sheet No. 5-D
2nd Substitute Fourteenth Revised Sheet No. 6
Substitute Fifteenth Revised Sheet No. 7
Substitute Seventeenth Revised Sheet No. 8
Substitute Fifteenth Revised Sheet No. 8.1

    Northwest states that copies of the filing were served on parties 
on the official service list in the above-captioned proceeding.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance 
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the 
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will 
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests 
must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 154.210 of 
the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest 
must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the 
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu 
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons 
unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies 
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First 
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c98f8c9b8a86a7a5a0a7ac9abcb9b9a6bbbd89afacbbaae7aea6bf"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="88cecddacbc7e6e4e1e6eddbfdf8f8e7fafcc8eeedfaeba6efe7fe">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Kimberly D. Bosem,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-7571 Filed 4-19-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Order entered January 7, 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 14
- 01342
- CV
BAYLOR UNIVERSITY ME DICAL CENTER, Appellant
V. MARY GREESON, Appellee On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas T rial Court Cause No. DC
- 13
- 07506 

### O RDER
We GRANT appellant’s January 5, 2015 unopposed motion for an extension of time to file a brief. Appellant shall file a brief by FEBRUARY 11, 2015 . We caution appellant that no further extension of time will be gra nted in this accelerated appeal absent extraordinary circumstances.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-12-00569-CV

MAE FIELDS AND THOMAS BETTS, ET AL.

v.

CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICAN AND WARDEN ORLANDO PEREZ

On appeal from the

197th District Court of Willacy County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 2011-CV-0264-A

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against 

appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

May 8, 2014.
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N
NO. 03-16-00727- CR
The State of Texas, App ellant

v. John Philli p Couch, II, Ap pellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F CO MAL CO UNTY, 207 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. CR2013 -44 4, H ONO RAB LE R. B RUCE B OY ER, JUDGE P RESIDING
O R D E R P ER CURIAM

T h e S t at e of Texas has filed a motion to stay all proce eding s in the district co u rt below pending this Court’s dispositi on of the State’s interlocutory appea l of the district court’s order g ranting the motion to supp re s s fi l ed by appellee J ohn Phill ip Couch, I I
. The State is statutorily 1 entitled to a st ay under these circumstances. Acc ordi n gl y , we gr ant t he S tate’s moti on and order 2 a stay of the proc eeding s below pending our disposition of the State’s appea l. I t is ordere d on November 3, 2016.

Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Pemberton, and F ield Do Not Publish See Tex. Code Crim. P roc. a rt. 44.01(a) (5). 1 See id . art. 44.01(e ). 2
EXHIBIT 31.1

SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

I, Frank Torchia, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Torch Executive Services Ltd.;



2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact 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 present in 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.

I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



a)

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 its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



b)

Paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC transition Rules contained in SEC Release No. 33-8238;



c)

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



d)

Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent 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.

I have disclosed, based on my 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);



a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design 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



b)

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





|Date: June 10, 2004 | /s/ Frank Torchia                        
|------------------- | -----------------------------------------
|                    | Frank Torchia                            
|                    | Principal Executive and Financial Officer
|                    |                                          



| |  |  |  | 
| |  |  |  | 
| |  |  |  |
Before the First Division,

June 3, 1958

No. 62034.

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

protest 315019-K (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel'that the merchandise consists of metal dime savings banks the same in all material respects as those the subject of *M. Pressner & Co.*v. *United States*(36 Cust. Ct. 262, C. D. 1784), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Exhibit
4.1


 


FOURTH
AMENDMENT TO


AMENDED
AND RESTATED PROMISSORY NOTE 


 


This
FOURTH AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED PROMISSORY NOTE (this “Fourth Amendment”) is entered into as of April 12, 2022,
by and between UNIQUE LOGISTICS INTERNATIONAL INC., a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Nevada (the “Company”),
and Trillium Partners, L.P., a limited partnership organized and existing under the laws
of the state of Delaware (the “Lender”) and further amends that certain AMENDED AND RESTATED PROMISSORY NOTE, dated April
7, 2021, made by Company in favor of Lender, as amended July 22, 2021, pursuant to that first amendment thereto, and September 23, 2021,
pursuant to that certain second amendment thereto, and March 31, 2022, pursuant to that certain third amendment, (the “Original
Note”).


 


RECITALS


 


	 	A.	WHEREAS,
    the Company has requested that the Lender extend the maturity date of the note from March 31, 2022 to September 30, 2022 to
    provide Company with additional time for payment; 
	 	 	 
	 	B.	WHEREAS,
    the Lender agrees that it would be in its best interest to extend the maturity date of the Original Note and to amend the Original
    Note accordingly with effect from December 31, 2021;


 


AGREEMENT


 


NOW
THEREFORE, for adequate consideration the sufficiency of which is acknowledged by the signatures of the parties hereto, the parties to
this Second Amendment agree as follows:


 


The
first paragraph of the Original Note is amended to delete “March 31, 2022” and replace the same with “September 30,
2022”


 


The
parties hereto have executed this Fourth Amendment effective as of March 31, 2022.


 


[SIGNATURE
PAGE FOLLOWS]


 




    	Page 1 of 2



     


    

 


	COMPANY:	 
	 	 	 
	UNIQUE
    LOGISTICS INTERNATIONAL INC.	 
	 	 	 
	By:	 	 
	Name:	Sunandan
    Ray	 
	Title:	CEO
    	 
	 	 	 
	LENDER:
    	 
	 	 
	TRILLIUM
    PARTNERS, L.P.	 
	 	 	 
	By:	 	 
	Name:	Stephen
    Hicks	 
	Title:	Mgr
    of GP	 


 




    	Page 2 of 2
August 14, 1957

Reap. Dec. 8965.

#### *Samuel Shapiro & Co., Inc., a/c Jenny, Inc., et al.*v. *United States.*

Entered at Baltimore, Md. [Not published.] Motion by plaintiffs.
## THE STATE OF TEXAS
MANDATE

TO THE 8TH DISTRICT COURT OF HOPKINS COU NTY, GREETINGS:
Before the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 12th
day of December, A.D. 2014, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your Judgment was

determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

Charles Ray Miller, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee No. 06

- 14

- 00120

- CR

Trial Court No. 1423717

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
We note that the appellant, Charles Ray Miller, has adequately indicated his inability to
pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in this
behalf, and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Josh R. Morriss, III, Chief Justice of our said Cou rt of Appeals, with
the seal thereof annexed, at the City of Texarkana, this the 10th day of February , A.D. 2015

.

DEBRA K. AUTREY , Clerk
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6499

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

KLYNE MILTON MCMAHAN, JR., a/k/a Mike McMahon,

a/k/a John Adams, a/k/a J.R.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., District

Judge. (CR-96-203, CA-99-1507-2)

Submitted: October 27, 2003 Decided: November 21, 2003

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ and, KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Klyne Milton McMahan, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Fernando Groene, Kent

Pendleton Porter, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk,

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Klyne Milton McMahan, Jr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, , 123 S. Ct.

1029, 1039 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that McMahan has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. Further, we deny McMahan’s

motion for appointment of counsel and 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
EXHIBIT 32


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the
undersigned officer of Unity Global Holdings, Ltd.
(the "Company"), hereby certify to my knowledge that:

The Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2015
of the Company fully complies, in all material respects,
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 represents, 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 the Company and will be retained by
the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.


                             /s/ Chin Kha Foo
                                 Chief Executive Officer
                                 Chief Financial Officer
Date: July 18, 2016
# Official Journal L 254/28 S

| | ISSN 1725-2555 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 254 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5028 September 2007 |

ISSN 1725-2555

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 254

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5028 September 2007

---

| Contents | | II   Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is not obligatory | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | | Commission |
| | | 2007/616/EC |
| | * | Commission Decision of 5 September 2007 amending Decisions 2001/881/EC and 2002/459/EC as regards the list of border inspection posts
  (notified under document number C(2007) 4082)


   (1) | 1 |

Contents

II   Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is not obligatory

page

DECISIONS

Commission

2007/616/EC

*

Commission Decision of 5 September 2007 amending Decisions 2001/881/EC and 2002/459/EC as regards the list of border inspection posts
  (notified under document number C(2007) 4082)


   (1)

(notified under document number C(2007) 4082)

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.