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

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

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-2000
<CASH>                                           2,851
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  104,557
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (4,191)
<INVENTORY>                                     46,223
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               160,845
<PP&E>                                          89,200
<DEPRECIATION>                                (33,341)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 331,712
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           90,873
<BONDS>                                        144,874
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            13
<OTHER-SE>                                      89,909
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   331,712
<SALES>                                        547,061
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               547,061
<CGS>                                          387,184
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  509,843
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               122,659
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,541
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 42,352
<INCOME-TAX>                                    17,788
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  1,413
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    23,151
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.82
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.66


</TABLE>
No. 6334.

#### COLONIAL SUGAR COMPANY vs. A. MARX & SONS.

Syllabus.

Involves only issues of fact.

Appeal from the Civil District 'Court for the Parish of Orleans, Division “B,” No. 96,301. Honorable F. D. King, Judge.

Rice & Montgomery, for plaintiff and appellee.

Farrar, Jonas, Goldsborough & Goldberg, for defendant and appellant.

His Honor, JOHN ST. PAUL,

rendered the opinion and decree of the Court, as follows:

The main demand herein is not disputed. The reconventional demand is for freight paid upon a carload of iron pipe shipped by defendants which plaintiff is said to have rejected without just cause.

Admittedly sold for the purpose of drilling a well, the pipe was to be ‘ ‘ good second hand pipe, with good threads and couplings. *”*

The evidence taken on behalf of plaintiff is direct and overwhelming that the pipe was not of uniform size, not properly threaded, partly rust eaten, and wholly unfit for drilling a well; that defendant was notified at once of the rejection and asked to verify conditions by an immediate inspection, but declined to do so and ordered the shipment returned whence it came.

And the fact is that not a witness on behalf of defendant seriously undertakes to assert the contrary, except a Mr. Blieden, the manager of the concern, from whom defendant 'obtained the pipe, whose testimony, however, we are *261not prepared to accept .above that of all tbe other witnesses.

Opinion and decree, May 17th, 1915.

The trial Judge found for the plaintiff, and his finding seems to us correct.
No. 48754.

#### Protests 662234-G, etc., of Musolino Lo Conte Co. (Boston).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the cheese in question is similar to that the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706) and Abstracts 42146 and 41794. The protests were therefore sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
UNAUDITED FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE MONTH PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1999,
AND IS QUALIFIED IN IT ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         179,035
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  201,267
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    163,345
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               615,618
<PP&E>                                         275,480
<DEPRECIATION>                               (138,776)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,246,782
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          906,282
<BONDS>                                        265,799
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,057
<OTHER-SE>                                     339,443
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,246,782
<SALES>                                        628,188
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               628,188
<CGS>                                          516,429
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  516,429
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               356,682
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,400
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (244,923)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (244,923)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  33,137
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (211,786)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.02)



</TABLE>
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

PETER MARONEY, Petitioner,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent.

____________________

2010-3173

______________________

Petition for review of an arbitrator’s decision in FMCS case no. 09-60135 by Abigail Modjeska.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

M. J EFFERSON E UCHLER , The Law Office of M. Jefferson Euchler, of Virginia Beach, Virginia, argued for petitioner.

B RYANT G. S NEE , Deputy Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for respondent. On the brief were T ONY W EST , Assistant Attorney General, J EANNE E. D AVIDSON , Director, and

B RIAN S IMKIN , Assistant Director, H ILLARY A. S TERN

, Senior Trial Counsel.

______________________T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (B RYSON

, O’M ALLEY , and R EYNA

, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

July 11, 2011 /s/ Jan Horbaly Date Jan Horbaly
Clerk
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Disaster Declaration # 10862 and # 10863] 

# AGENCY:

U.S. Small Business Administration. 

# ACTION:

Amendment 1. 

# SUMMARY:

This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Texas (FEMA-1697-DR), dated 5/1/2007. 

*Incident:*                         Severe Storms and Tornadoes.                     

*Incident Period:*                         4/21/2007 through 4/24/2007.                     

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         5/7/2007.                     

*Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         7/2/2007.                     

*EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         2/1/2008.                     

# ADDRESSES:

Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of the Presidential disaster declaration for the State of Texas, dated 5/1/2007 is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster: 

*Primary Counties:*

Denton. 

*Contiguous Counties:*

Texas:  Collin, Cooke, Dallas, Grayson, Tarrant, Wise 

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

Herbert L. Mitchell, 

Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.

 [FR Doc. E7-9186 Filed 5-11-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
#





















Exhibit 99.1







CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002







In connection with the Annual Report of Triant Technologies Inc. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert Heath, Chief Executive 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, 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Robert Heath____________________

Robert Heath,

Chief Executive Officer

April 28, 2002
#### YANKEE DOODLES, LTD., a California corporation, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. LONG BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 03-56853.

D.C. No. CV-02-05563-SJO.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Sept. 13, 2005.

Decided Sept. 22, 2005.

Mark Shoemaker, Van Nuys, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Robert E. Shannon, Esq., Monte H. Machit, Esq., Office of the City Attorney City of Long Beach, Long Beach, CA for Defendan1>-Appellee.

Before: FARRIS, FERNANDEZ, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Plaintiff-Appellant Yankee Doodles, Ltd. (“Yankee”) filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against the Long Beach Police Department (“City”) alleging due process and equal protection violations under the Fourteenth Amendment. The facts and procedural history are known to the parties and we do not recount them here.

First, Yankee waived its Rule 59 and Rule 60 arguments because, although it raised them in its notice of appeal, it failed to present them in its opening brief. *See Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington,*350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir.2003). Regarding Yankee’s Rule 56(f) argument, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion because ample evidence demonstrates that Yankee did not diligently pursue its previous discovery opportunities. *See Qualls v. Blue Cross of Cal., Inc.,*22 F.3d 839, 844 (9th Cir.1994).

Second, Yankee was not “deprived” of any property right because it continued to operate as a food establishment throughout the licensing process, and, more importantly, the City ultimately granted Yankee a license. *See Bd. of Regents v. Roth,*408 U.S. 564, 569, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972). Moreover, Yankee does not have a reasonable expectation of entitlement to a business license because the Long Beach Municipal Code grants the City broad discretion to deny a license. *See Groten v. California,*251 F.3d 844, 850 *902(9th Cir.2001); *Jacobson v. Hannifin,*627 F.2d 177, 180 (9th Cir.1980). Nor has Yankee pled facts demonstrating the City’s initial denial of Yankee’s application threatened its reputation or goodwill. *Paul v. Davis,*424 U.S. 693, 701, 96 S.Ct. 1155, 47 L.Ed.2d 405 (1976); *WMX Techs, Inc. v. Miller,*197 F.3d 367, 373 (9th Cir.1999) (en banc). Finally, Yankee asserts no constitutionally cognizable fundamental right under a substantive due process analysis.

Third, Yankee waived its equal protection argument by failing to squarely present a substantive argument in its brief. *See Indep. Towers of Wash.,*350 F.3d at 929.

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Nicholas Gal et al. *v.*United States

No. 6055.

Invoices dated Teningen, Germany, August 28, 1936, etc.

Certified September 8, 1936, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., September 14, 1936, etc.

Entry No. 734420, etc.

(Decided September 12, 1944)

*Eugene R. Pickrell (Eugene A. Chase■*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Daniel I. Auster,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Tilson, Judge:

The appeals listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon a stipulation to the effect that the facts and issues involved herein are the same in all material respects as the facts and issues involved in *Nicholas Gal*v. *United States,*Reap. Dec. 6025, and the record therein has been admitted in evidence herein.

Accepting this stipulation as a statement of fact, I find and hold the proper dutiable export value of the aluminum foil covered by these appeals to be the invoice price of the merchandise, less insurance, freight to German port, sea freight, and consular fee as noted on the respective invoices, and less duties, and that there was no higher foreign value. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Exhibit 32

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEFFINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the reporton Form 10-Q/A of ComCam International, Inc. for the quarterly period ended September30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof, I, Don Gilbreath, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, asadopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the bestof my knowledge and belief:

 

(1)  This report fully complies withthe requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

(2)  The information contained in thisreport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition ofthe registrant at the end of the period covered by this report and results ofoperations of the registrant for the period covered by this report.

 

Date: January 14, 2011

 

 

/s/ Don Gilbreath

Don Gilbreath, Chief Executive Officer and ChiefFinancial Officer

 

This certificationaccompanies this report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 andshall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, bedeemed filed by the registrant for the purposes of §18 of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended. This certification shall not be incorporatedby reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, orthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after thedate of this report), irrespective of any general incorporation languagecontained in such filing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

----
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-6200

AINSWORTH C. JACKSON, Petitioner - Appellant,
v. UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION; GEORGE SNYDER, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:07-hc-02084-D) Submitted: July 15, 2008 Decided: July 31, 2008 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ainsworth C. Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Steve R. Matheny, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.-2- PER CURIAM: Ainsworth C. Jackson, a federal prisoner and District of Columbia Code offender, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition. 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 any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jackson 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED
xhibit 31.1  PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION  I, Donald R. Mayer, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of WorldNet, Inc. of Nevada;  2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statement made, in light of the circumstances under which statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly 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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.  4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’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  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):  (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 small business issuer’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 small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.   Date: May 9, 2007 /s/ Donald R. Mayer Donald R. Mayer, Principal Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Richard LaBarbera, President and
Chief Executive Officer of Kintera, Inc. (the Registrant), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:

(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant, to which this certification is attached as an exhibit (the
Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 Registrant.



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|Date: August 9, 2007                 
|                                     
|/s/ Richard LaBarbera                
|Richard LaBarbera                    
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|(Principal Executive Officer)
(Reap. Dec. 9851)

#### Indussa Corp. *v.*United States

Entry No. 18848, etc.

(Decided November 23, 1960)

*Barnes, Richardson £ Colburn*for the plaintiff.

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

Olivee, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, are before me for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows :

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for the plaintiff and the Assistant Attorney General for the United States, subject to the approval of the Court, that the merchandise and the issues in the appeals for reappraisement listed in Schedule “A”, attached hereto are *565made a part hereof, are the same in all material respects as the merchandise and issues involved in *Indussa Corp.*v. *United States,*C.A.D. 736, and that the record in said case may be incorporated in the record of the appeals listed in said Schedule “A”.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the prices at the time of exportation of the instant merchandise to the United States at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale for home consumption to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade were the appraised unit values less 40% plus 9% sales tax plus packing as invoiced.

On the agreed facts, and following the cited authority on the law, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question is foreign value, as defined in section .402(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and hold that such statutory value therefor is the appraised unit values, less 40 per centum, plus 9 per centum sales tax, plus packing, as invoiced.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.