alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of Joe Gowdy SLACK, Debtor. James D. Slack, Jr., Appellant, v. Joe Gowdy Slack, Appellee.

No. 04-11208.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Sept. 29, 2005.

James D. Slack, Jr., Archer City, TX, pro se.

Ronald L. Yandell, Law Offices of Ron L. Yandell, Wichita Falls, TX, for Appellee.

*629Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appellant James Slack appeals from the bankruptcy court’s final judgment against him in his First Amended Complaint to Revoke Discharge of Debtor. He asserts that the bankruptcy court erred by not revoking the Debtor’s discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727(d)(1) and/or 11 U.S.C. § 727(d)(2).

“We apply the same standard of review as did the district court: the bankruptcy court’s factual findings are reviewed for clear error; its legal conclusions and mixed questions of fact and law, *de novo.” AT & T Universal Card Servs. v. Mercer (In re Mercer),*246 F.3d 391, 402 (5th Cir.2001) (en banc). The bankruptcy court’s credibility determinations are entitled to deference, and its factual findings may be set aside only if, after considering the entire evidence, the reviewing court is left with “the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” *Robertson v. Dennis (In re Dennis),*330 F.3d 696, 701 (5th Cir.2003) (citation omitted).

In an adversary proceeding, the plaintiff has the burden of proving sufficient facts to sustain his claims by a preponderance of the evidence. *See Beauboeuf v. Beaubouef (In re Beaubouef),*966 F.2d 174 (5th Cir.1992). After review of the record and the briefs of the parties, we find that the bankruptcy court did not err, clearly or otherwise, in concluding that the Appellant failed in his burden of proof required for discharge revocation. We find no error in the bankruptcy court’s conclusions that the Appellant did not show that the Debtor’s actions and mistakes were knowingly and fraudulently made, that the Appellant did not show that the Debtor’s mistakes were material, and that the Appellant did not show that he was unaware of the facts at issue when the Debtor sought discharge. Accordingly, the district court’s judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s decision is

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 21

- 00564

- CV

Keith Volk , Appellant

v. Coryell County Sheriff's Office , Appellee

FROM THE 459TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, NO. D

- 1

- GN

- 21

- 000290 , THE HONORABLE MAYA GUERRA GAMBLE , JUDG E PRESIDING

O R D E R A N D M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

PER CURIAM The parties have filed a joint motion to abate briefing deadlines or, alternatively, for
an extension of ti me to file appellant ’s brief. Appellant ha s also filed a motion to correct the record , explaining tha t the administrative record filed in the appeal is incomplete and asking this Court to
send to the trial court a question pur suant to rule 36.6(b) of the rules of appella te proce dure. See
Tex. R. App. P. 36.3(b) ( “ If the parties cannot agree to a correction to the agency record, the appellate court must

— on any party's motion or its own incentive

— send the question to the
trial court. ” )

. We grant both mo tions , abate the appeal , and remand the matter to the trial court to
d etermine , after notice and hearing, “ what constitutes an accurate copy of the agency record and [to]
order the a gency to send an accurate copy ” to the clerk of this C ourt

. See id

. T he parties are2 ordered to file in this Court n o la ter than May 9, 2022, either a sta tus report or a motion to reinstate explaining that an accurate record has been filed

. Appellant ’ s brief will be due thirty day s after the
date on which the appeal is reins tated following our receipt of the accurate agenc y record.
It is so ordered on March 11, 2022

.

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Kelly and Smith
Abated and Remanded
Filed: March 11, 2022
No. 46368.

#### Protest 969663-G of Universal Carloading & Distrbg. Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Stokby*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 343, C. D. 358) it was held that 10 percent allowance should have been made for the weight of the gelatinous material in question. The protest was sustained accordingly.
Exhibit 11.1


                                   COMPETITIVE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.       
                          Schedule of Computation of Earnings Per Share       
                                        (Unaudited)         

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                              Six months                    Quarter
                                            ended January 31,          ended January 31,   
                                                     
                                            1999         1998           1999         1998  
<S>                                     <C>          <C>            <C>          <C>
Net income (loss) applicable
  to common stock                       $   (76,614) $  (501,279)   $  238,834   $   72,896 
Common and common equivalent shares -
    diluted:
  Basic weighted average common
    shares outstanding                    5,983,132    5,959,515     5,975,286    5,964,145
  Adjustments for assumed exercise
    of stock options                         16,096*      37,605*       31,180       25,806
  Adjustments for assumed exercise
    of stock warrants                            --        5,028*           --        4,260
  Weighted average number of common
    and common equivalent shares
    outstanding                           5,999,228    6,002,148     6,006,466    5,994,211

Net income (loss) per share of
  common stock:
    Basic and diluted                   $     (0.01) $     (0.08)   $     0.04   $     0.01

* Anti-dilutive.

</TABLE>
These calculations are submitted in accordance with Regulation S-K item
601 (b)(11) which differs from the requirements of paragraph 13 of Statement
of Financial Accounting Standards No. 128 because they produce an
anti-dilutive result.
No. 43145.

Suit 4232.

#### Draeger *Shipping Co., Heymann Products Co., et al.*v. *United States.*

C. D. 53 affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

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

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-01-1999
<CASH>                                          18,485
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   92,814
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     60,123
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               188,910
<PP&E>                                         265,701
<DEPRECIATION>                                 114,986
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 488,087
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          107,100
<BONDS>                                         91,599
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,702
<OTHER-SE>                                     252,814
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   488,087
<SALES>                                        193,277
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               193,277
<CGS>                                          142,709
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  142,709
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,479
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 24,824
<INCOME-TAX>                                    10,302
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             14,522
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,522
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.85
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.84


</TABLE>
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Justification forappropriation, FY...**
 
2014 | 2015
 
SuDoc Number:EX 1.2:P 93/AP 6/
Item Number:1200-B (online)
CGP systemNumber:001083128
 
October 18, 2018
No. 54893.

#### M. Adler’s Son, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 153732-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the facts and issues herein are similar to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) and that the quantities reported by the inspector as manifested, not found, were not in fact received by the importer. In accordance *324with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited it was held that duty is not assessable upon such portions of merchandise as were reported by the inspector as manifested, not found. The protests were sustained to this extent.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                             148
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,343
<ALLOWANCES>                                       360
<INVENTORY>                                     18,659
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                32,768
<PP&E>                                          24,916
<DEPRECIATION>                                  14,728
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  59,284
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,562
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,073
<OTHER-SE>                                      33,509
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    59,284
<SALES>                                         69,398
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                69,398
<CGS>                                           41,237
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   41,237
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                21,328
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   103
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 910
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,105
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,412
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,682
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,682
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.88
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.88
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit
      32





**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 on Form 10-K for the year ended December
      31,
      2006 of BNP U.S. Funding L.L.C. (the “Company”) as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Martine Billeaud,
      President and Director of the Company, and Thomas Clyne, Chief Financial Officer
      and Director of the Company, each 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 aspects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




By
            /s/ Martine BilleaudMartine
              BilleaudPresident
                and Director




By
            /s/ Thomas ClyneThomas
              ClyneChief
                Financial Officer and Director




Date:
        April 2, 2007
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned certifies
that, to his knowledge, this periodic report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that information contained in this
periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Ask Jeeves, Inc. March
15, 2005
    
        /s/ Steven
BerkowitzSteven Berkowitz
Chief Executive OfficerMarch
15, 2005
    
        /s/ Steven
J. SordelloSteven J. Sordello
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
 This certification accompanies this periodic report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the
Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. This certification shall not
be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange
Act, except to the extent that the Registrant specifically incorporates it by reference.
# C_2016410EN.01001902.xml

| 7.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 410/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 410/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2016 — Weissenfels v Parliament

(Case T-684/15 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Non-contractual liability - Impartiality on the part of the Civil Service Tribunal - Personal data))

(2016/C 410/26)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Roderich Weissenfels (Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany) (represented by G. Maximini, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament (represented by: J. Steele and S. Seyr, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 24 September 2015 in Weissenfels v Parliament (F-92/14, EU:F:2015:110), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

Weissenfels

Parliament

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Mr Roderich Weissenfels to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Roderich Weissenfels to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.

1

---
(Reap. Dec. 9608)

#### B. A. McKenzie & Co., Inc., a/c United China & Glass Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 22-499.

(Decided February 25, 1960)

*Stein & ShostaJc*for the plaintiff.

*George Ooehran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation entered into between counsel for the respective parties:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, as to the merchandise covered by the Appeal for Reappraisement enumerated in the attached Schedule of Cases, that, at the time of exportation to the United States, the prices at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal market of the country from which exported in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States, including the cost of containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States were the appraised values, less additions made to meet the advances by the Appraiser in similar cases covering the non-dutiable so-called f.o.b. charges for inland freight, insurance premium, storage, hauling and light-erage, petties, etc., added by the importer on entry.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that there were no higher foreign values for merchandise such or similar to the merchandise covered by the Appeal for Reappraisement enumerated in the attached Schedule of Cases, at the time of exportation thereof.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the Appeal for Reap-praisement enumerated in the attached Schedule of Oases may be deemed submitted for decision on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find and hold export value, as that value is defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise herein involved, and that such value for the merchandise covered by the appeal herein was the appraised value, less additions made to meet the advances by the appraiser in similar cases covering the nondutiable so-called f.o.b. charges for inland freight, insurance premium, storage, hauling and lighterage, petties, etc., added by the importer on entry.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 

Office of Davis-Bacon & Labor Standards

DBLS Notice 2018-02

Subject: Frequency of Issuance of Prevailing Maintenance Wage Rates 

determined or adopted by HUD

Date: October 15, 2018 

Purpose 

To give notice to public housing authorities (PHAs), tribally designated housing entities 

(TDHEs), and Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL) of a schedule change in the process 

for issuing prevailing maintenance wage rates as determined or adopted by HUD. 

Background 

In accordance with the provisions of Section 12 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 (42 USC 1437j), 

Section 104 (b) and 805 (b) of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination 

Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 4114 (b) and 25 U.S.C. 4225(b)), the HUD Office of Davis-Bacon and Labor 

Standards (DBLS) determines the minimum wage rates payable for all maintenance laborers and 

mechanics performing maintenance work at low-income housing projects operated by PHAs, 

TDHEs, and DHHL This includes the minimum wage rates payable under any contracts entered 

into for maintenance services. 

Change in Policy 

Maintenance wage rate determinations (MWDs) will no longer be issued every year at the 

beginning of the PHAs/TDHEs/DHHL fiscal year. Effective immediately, MWDs will be issued 

by DBLS staff every two years (e.g., for a PHA or TDHE or DHHL whose fiscal years starts 

January 1, 2019 the MWD rates will be effective January 1, 2019 and expire on December 31, 

2020). 

DBLS staff will continue to follow all other procedures outlined in Chapter 8 of HUD Office of 

the Secretary Handbook 1344.1, Rev 2, Federal Labor Standards Requirements in Housing and Urban 

Development Programs, when determining or adopting maintenance wage rates. 

Any questions regarding this Notice should be directed to HUD’s Regional DBLS staff with 

jurisdiction in your area. A list of Labor Standards contacts is available on our national webpage. 

/S/ 

Pamela Glekas Spring 

Director 

Office of Davis Bacon and Labor Standards
**EXHIBIT 23.1**
**CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENTAUDITORS**
     We consent to the incorporation by reference inthe Registration Statements on Forms S-8 pertaining to the1996 Equity Incentive Plan, the 1998-A Direct Hit Stock Plan andthe 1999 Non-Officer Equity Incentive Plan (No. 333-33694),the 1999 Equity Incentive Plan, and the 1999 Employee Stock PurchasePlan (No. 333-88435), the 1999 Equity Incentive Plan, as Amended through May 25,2000 and the 1999 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, as Amendedthrough May 25, 2000 (No. 333-97405), the Net EffectSystems, Inc. 1997 Stock Plan (No. 333-95687), the 1999Equity Incentive Plan, as amended through May 25, 2000, the1999 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, as amended throughMay 25, 2000, and the 1999 Non-Qualified Equity IncentivePlan, as amended through January 1, 2001(No. 333-73400), and the 1999 Equity Incentive Plan, asamended, and the 1999 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, as amended(No. 333-105271), and the Registration Statement onForm S-3 pertaining to resale of the Zero CouponConvertible Subordinated Notes (No. 333-108932), and ineach of the related Prospectuses of Ask Jeeves, Inc. of ourreportdated January 23, 2004, except for the fourth paragraph ofNote 14, as to which the date is February 27, 2004,with respect to the consolidated financial statements andfinancial statement schedule of Ask Jeeves, Inc. included inthis Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year endedDecember 31, 2003 filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission.
 /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP    
Walnut Creek, CaliforniaFebruary 27, 2004
Exhibit 31.3

Certification of Principal Executive Officer

pursuant to

Exchange Act
Rules 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a),

as adopted pursuant
to

Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Jeff T. Green, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of The Trade Desk, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2016; and
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |  |  |                              
|-------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------
|Date: April 26, 2017 |  |  |  | /s/ Jeff T. Green            
|                     |  |  |  | Jeff T. Green                
|                     |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer      
|                     |  |  |  | (Principal Executive Officer)
No. 56677.

protest 156239-K (New York).

#### Joseph H. Meyer Bros. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 1540(1 the court dismissed the protest.