alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
                             CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection  with  the  Quarterly  Report of Shoreside Investments, Inc. (the
"Company")  on  Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities  and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert
M.  Karz,  Chief  Executive  Officer and Chief Financial 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  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge:

     (1)  The  Report  fully  complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d)  of  the  Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934;  and

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



                                   /s/Robert  M.  Karz
                                   -------------------------
                                   Robert  M.  Karz
                                   Chief  Executive  Officer
                                   Chief  Financial  Officer
                                   August  19,  2003
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 91 (Friday, May 11, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 26862]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9081]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary


Aviation Proceedings, Agreements Filed the Week Ending April 27, 
2007

    The following Agreements were filed with the Department of 
Transportation under the Sections 412 and 414 of the Federal Aviation 
Act, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1383 and 1384) and procedures governing 
proceedings to enforce these provisions. Answers may be filed within 21 
days after the filing of the application.
    Docket Number: OST-2007-28027.
    Date Filed: April 23, 2007.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject: Mail Vote 534--Resolution 010q, TC3/TC23 Special Passenger 
Amending, Resolution from Sri Lanka, (Memo 1084), Intended effective 
date: 1 May 2007.

    Docket Number: OST-2007-28038.
    Date Filed: April 24, 2007.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject: PSC/RESO/137 dated March 20, 2007, Finally Adopted 
Resolutions & Recommended Practices, PSC/MINS/019 dated March 20, 2007, 
Intended effective date: 1 June 2007.

Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison.
 [FR Doc. E7-9081 Filed 5-10-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
## DoN6ve::</ CoNeST!ff\**R.Pv~vs /kSr~L**  

### f1 0--V'J CJi\ {1

### ~ G 

## h t/ 7 

## E G l 'AC.


## J-Actt

## M!Jw~ -A.QviO,..h'X



## 1

e:ort'\LA /I 

### {er I • (

,

### 1~ J ,.\) .1
\**....JO~N** (V\C**M:s:c~\~** Y.\0**o.J~<r'{** 

# 1// LQQ.rv-td

## VJ1c~ 

## O, (
::50 }-1/J**~** 

### . ""S€ f.-jA..J 

### fv1 A.**7--~** 0 (L.

## Clav~**Su~..Ji.-.** ePA 

# E r. C..

### Wo**r~o..A** 

## Ef A 

# D.N"**~** AN 

## d Ef (2c.s-ov(lcf 5**~~~** 

### &o'y/;J t_./

## ~,ck**m~,A~'n** 

## 6;iRI'•k bf't:Vp**~r::ve..!** 

# ( M I -cou.. · L 

## WI 1 1. {A v V \ ;::;**K~eVVt Svd·l-,i~** 

## rJ~tdu__**H~ ~**  

## 17 Df/1-/J-o II

, c tf'l1.'\



# J(,WI.. r-'1**~ ~tf('-&IJ,** **~** qc:;(f. b/'cj,wn l9**ffe;;,..~.s,** c- c::?/'"1



### ·

### e~p~x- /<!!!

### ~~a.l C6W? 

### .J

j u

### d..~t 

### \. l t\ t

, vJG_ (£:_ W', ic._ •H5,. Q...O. r q
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Financial Data Schedule for Form 10-Q for January 31, 1998
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000102198
<NAME> COMPETITIVE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                         260,934
<SECURITIES>                                 2,122,934
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,121,072
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,576,436
<PP&E>                                         387,755
<DEPRECIATION>                                 169,045
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,729,814
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,955,340
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     60,675
<COMMON>                                        59,960
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,653,839
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,729,814
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,387,539
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,947,560
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              34,082
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (501,279)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (501,279)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (501,279)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.08)
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6967

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CLEVELAND NELSON, a/k/a Cleve, a/k/a Fat Daddy, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Fayetteville. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CR-94-57-H, CA-97-578-H) Submitted: October 8, 1998 Decided: November 16, 1998 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Cleveland Nelson, Appellant Pro Se. Jane J. Jackson, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Cleveland Nelson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Nelson , Nos. CR-94-57-H;CA-97-578-H (E.D.N.C. Apr. 29, 1998). 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.

DISMISSED
Order entered August 20, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00700-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF K.B., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 304th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. JC-18-00004-W

ORDER

This accelerated appeal concerns the termination of appellant’s parental rights. Before 

the Court is appellee’s August 19, 2019 motion for an extension of time to file its brief on the 

merits. We GRANT the motion and extend the time September 9, 2019. We caution appellee 

that further extension requests will be disfavored.

/s/ KEN MOLBERG 

JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 99.1



SCHOOL SPECIALTY, INC.



SCHEDULE II - VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS

FISCAL YEARS ENDED APRIL 24, 2004, APRIL 30, 2005 AND APRIL 29, 2006



|                                |  |                |  |                              |  |                             |  |                         |     |  |            |       |  |                        |  |               
|------------------------------- |  | -------------- |  | ---------------------------- |  | --------------------------- |  | ----------------------- | --- |  | ---------- | ----- |  | ---------------------- |  | --------------
|Description                     |  | Date           |  | Balance atBeginningof Period |  | Charged toCosts andExpenses |  | Charged toOtherAccounts |     |  | Deductions |       |  | Balance atEnd ofPeriod |  | Date          
|Allowance for doubtful accounts |  | April 26, 2003 |  | 3,796,000                    |  | 409,000                     |  | 2,623,000               | (a) |  | (201,000   | ) (b) |  | 6,627,000              |  | April 24, 2004
|                                |  | April 24, 2004 |  | 6,627,000                    |  | 945,000                     |  | 84,000                  | (a) |  | (3,591,000 | ) (b) |  | 4,065,000              |  | April 30, 2005
|                                |  | April 30, 2005 |  | 4,065,000                    |  | 1,243,000                   |  | 583,000                 | (a) |  | (2,011,000 | ) (b) |  | 3,880,000              |  | April 29, 2006
|                                |  |                |  |                              |  |                             | 
|Restructuring reserve           |  | April 26, 2003 |  | 457,000                      |  |                            |  |                        |     |  | (216,000   | )     |  | 241,000                |  | April 24, 2004
|                                |  | April 24, 2004 |  | 241,000                      |  |                            |  |                        |     |  | (241,000   | )     |  |                       |  | April 30, 2005
|                                |  | April 30, 2005 |  |                             |  | 4,002,000                   |  |                        |     |  | (1,673,000 | )     |  | 2,329,000              |  | April 29, 2006

---

|(a) | Allowance for doubtful accounts acquired in purchase acquisitions.
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------

|(b) | Represents write-offs of uncollectable accounts receivable offset by recoveries of previously written-off accounts receivable.
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Exhibit 10.3**

**Loan Agreement (1)**

**Summary of Loan Agreement by and between the Company and Agricultural Bank dated March 23, 2006**

| **Main contents:** |
|--------------------|
| •             | **Contract No: No.** (81101200600000470) |
| •             | **Loan Amount (RMB)** 28 million |
| •             | **Contract Term:** March 20th, 2006 ~   September 20th, 2006 |
| •             | **Interest rate:** fixed annual rate of 5.22%; |
| •             | **Payment of Interest:** The interest of the   principal shall be paid monthly, and the interest settlement date is on the twentieth   date of each month. |
| •             | **Purpose of the loan** is to purchase raw   materials for the Company. |
| •             | **Liabilities of Breach of Contract** Breach of   contract penalty; withdrawal of loan, prepayment of principal and interest   before maturity, attachment of assets; imposition of compound interest;   lawyer’s fee and travel cost in case of litigation due to the Company ‘s   breach of contract etc. |

| **Headlines of the articles omitted** |
|---------------------------------------|
| •                                | Outline of   the loan |
| •                                | Condition precedent   to the drawing of the loan |
| •                                | Rights and   obligations of the lender |
| •                                | Rights and   obligations of the borrower |
| •                                | Prepayment   of the loan |
| •                                | Breach of   Contract |
| •                                | Guaranty for   the loan |
| •                                | Dispute settlement |
| •                                | Miscellaneous |
| •                                | Effectiveness |
| •                                | Validity |
| •                                | Attention |

----
No. 55531.

#### J. E. Bernard & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 976469-G/88330, etc. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). The claim of the plaintiffs was therefore sustained.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 34 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 34

  Honoring the life of Percy Lavon Julian, a pioneer in the field of 
   organic chemistry research and development and the first and only 
 African American chemist to be inducted into the National Academy of 
                               Sciences.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 18, 2007

Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas (for herself, Mr. Davis of Illinois, 
Mr. Rangel, Mr. Gordon of Tennessee, Mr. Costello, Mr. Rohrabacher, Ms. 
    Norton, Mr. Ehlers, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Ms. Kilpatrick of 
Michigan, Mr. Holt, and Ms. Matsui) submitted the following concurrent 
    resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Science and 
                               Technology

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
  Honoring the life of Percy Lavon Julian, a pioneer in the field of 
   organic chemistry research and development and the first and only 
 African American chemist to be inducted into the National Academy of 
                               Sciences.

Whereas Percy Julian was born on April 11, 1899, in Montgomery, Alabama, the son 
        of a railway clerk and the first member of his family to attend college, 
        graduating from DePauw University in 1920, receiving a M.S. degree from 
        Harvard University in 1923 and a Ph.D. from the University of Vienna in 
        1931;
Whereas in 1935 Dr. Julian became the first to discover a process to synthesize 
        physostigmine, the drug used in the treatment of glaucoma;
Whereas Dr. Julian later pioneered a commercial process to synthesize cortisone 
        from soy beans and yams, enabling the widespread use of cortisone as an 
        affordable treatment of arthritis;
Whereas Dr. Julian was the first African American chemist elected to the 
        National Academy of Sciences in 1973 for his lifetime of scientific 
        accomplishments, held over 130 patents at the time of his death in 1975, 
        and dedicated much of his life to the advancement of African Americans 
        in the sciences; and
Whereas Dr. Julian's life story has been documented in the PBS NOVA film 
        ``Forgotten Genius'': Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),  
That the Congress honors the life of Percy Lavon Julian, a pioneer in 
the field of organic chemistry research and development and the first 
and only African American chemist to be inducted into the National 
Academy of Sciences.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit
32.1











CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)








In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Walgreen Co., an Illinois corporation
(the "Company"), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended February 28, 2009 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Greg D. Wasson,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge:





(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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











/s/  Greg D.
Wasson


Greg D.
Wasson


Chief
Executive Officer


Dated:  March
26, 2009





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Walgreen Co. and will be retained by Walgreen Co. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7613

WINSTON WILKINS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus THEODIS BECK, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-99-496-5-O) Submitted: January 17, 2002 Decided: January 29, 2002 Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Winston Wilkins, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* For the purpose of this appeal we assume that the date appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could have been given to prison officials for mailing. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 (1988). 2 PER CURIAM: Winston Wilkins seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001) petition. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Appellant’s notice was not timely filed. Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appealperiod under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court’s order was entered on the docket on February 14, 2000. Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed on July 16, 2001. * Because Appellant failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions3 are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                    ------------


                         CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906
                                     OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Unico American
Corporation (the "Company") for the period ended September 30, 2006, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Erwin Cheldin,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
    the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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



                    /s/  Erwin Cheldin
                    ------------------
           Name:    Erwin Cheldin
           Title:   Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer
           Date:    November 8, 2006




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Unico American Corporation, and
will be retained by Unico American Corporation, and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

1 After examining appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has

determined unanimously to grant appellant’s request for a decision on the brief

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case

is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

JUL 23 1998

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

VERNA MONKS, a/k/a Verna

Stafford,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

NEVILLE MASSIE,

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 97-6417

(D.C. No. CIV-97-645-A)

(W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before BALDOCK, EBEL, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

Appellant, Verna Monks, appeals the district court’s denial of her petition

for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1 Before
-2-

proceeding on appeal, Monks must obtain a certificate of appealability from this

court, which requires “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

Monks pled guilty to two counts of second degree murder and was given

two concurrent indeterminate sentences of ten years’ to life imprisonment. After

successfully challenging the validity of those sentences, Monks was resentenced

by a different judge, who imposed two consecutive life sentences based upon

evidence developed at the second sentencing hearing of the grievous and

outrageous nature of the crimes for which she was convicted and other criminal

conduct. Monks challenges the harsher sentences on the ground of judicial

vindictiveness. A presumption of vindictiveness will not arise when, as here,

“a different judge imposes the second sentence and provides an on-the-record,

wholly logical, nonvindictive reason for the sentence.” Macomber v. Hannigan,

15 F.3d 155, 156 (10th Cir. 1994) (quotation omitted). Absent a presumption of

vindictiveness, Monks bears the burden of demonstrating actual vindictiveness,

see id. at 157, which she has failed to do.
-3-

Therefore, Monks’ application for a certificate of appealability is DENIED,

and the appeal is DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

David M. Ebel

Circuit Judge