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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM STERLING
DEILLING FUND 1083-1 FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         141,617
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,595
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               151,212
<PP&E>                                       9,466,825
<DEPRECIATION>                               7,888,531
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,729,506
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,729,506<F1>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,729,506
<SALES>                                        297,133<F2>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               297,133
<CGS>                                          337,512
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  337,512
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (40,379)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (3.79)<F3>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Other-SE is composed of partnership equity.
<F2>Sales - The sales line includes $6,200 of interest income
<F3>EPS-Primary is based upon limited parners share of net income divided by the
outstanding partnership units of 11,077
</FN>


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2

AMTECH SYSTEMS, INC. AND ITS
SUBSIDIARIES

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Annual Report of Amtech Systems, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-K for the period ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Bradley C.
Anderson, Vice President  Finance and Chief Financial 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 result of operations of the Company.

| | By | /s/ Bradley
      C. Anderson                              |  | 
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
| |    | Bradley C. Anderson                                       
| |    | Vice President 
      Finance and Chief Financial Officer | 
| |    | Amtech
      Systems, Inc.                                
| |    | Date:
      December 10, 2008                             

---
EXHIBIT 32.01





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of PDF Solutions, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2012 (the “Report”), I, John K. Kibarian, President and Chief Executive 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 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/ JOHN K. KIBARIANJohn K. KibarianPresident and Chief Executive Officer(principal executive officer)





Date: August 9, 2012
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.2    
    


 
 

First Amendment to the DRS Technologies, Inc. Incentive Compensation Plan
  (effective as of November 8, 2007)    
    


The
First Amendment deletes Section 6 in its entirety and replaces it with the following: 


        6.    Time and Form of Payment.    Unless otherwise determined by the Committee, all payments in respect of Awards
granted under this Plan shall be made, in cash, within a reasonable period after the end of the Performance Period; provided, however, that in no event shall such payments be made later than the 15th
day of the third month following the end of the taxable year (of the Company or the Participant, whichever is later) in which the Performance Goals have been achieved (except in the case of certain
unforeseen events, as set forth in regulations issued under Section 409A). In addition, in the case of Participants who are Covered Employees, unless otherwise determined by the Committee, such
payments shall be made only after achievement of the Performance Goals has been certified by the Committee. 











QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.2


First Amendment to the DRS Technologies, Inc. Incentive Compensation Plan (effective as of November 8, 2007)
Before the Third Division,

May 29, 1951

No. 55597.

#### Air Clearance Assn., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 163216-K, etc. (New York).

*442Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of live birds similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Alfred Mazer*v. *United States*(25 Cust. Ct. 67, C. D. 1265), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Before the Third Division,

June 10, 1944

No. 49485.

#### Protests 82337-K, etc., of Continental Grain Co. et al. (Buffalo).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise in question is the same in all material* respects as the oat scalpings the subject of *Richardson*v. *United States*(12 Cust. Ct. 6, C. D. 823), which record was incorporated herein. It was therefore held dutiable at 5 percent ad valorem under paragraph 731 and T. D. 49752 as claimed.
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
 PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
 AS ADOPTED TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 
 
 
 I, Scott C. Houghton, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on 10-QSB of August Biomedical Corporation for the quarter ended May 31, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Annual Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material aspects the financial condition and results of operation of August Biomedical Corporation.
 
 
 
 
 
 By:
 
 
 ____________________________
 Name:                       Scott C. Houghton
 Title:                          Chief Executive Officer
 
 Date:  July 21, 2003
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# New command video highlights reverse logistics 

By Jake JoyDLA Disposition Services Public Affairs

                BATTLE CREEK, Mich.  –              
A new online video highlights the mission and capabilities of Defense Logistics Agency Disposition Services and its worldwide workforce.

The 4-minute infomercial bolsters DLA Disposition Services’ claim as DOD’s preeminent source for reverse logistics expertise. Included among the video highlights are the command’s commitment to supporting warfighters and government agencies with environmentally responsible property disposal, reuse opportunities and surplus property sales. Humanitarian assistance and disaster response, hazardous property removal and demilitarization, expeditionary capabilities and special programs are all covered by the agency-produced info product.04:12VIDEO  | 04:12 |DLA Disposition Services: DOD's Reverse Logistics Experts (open caption)

 

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT
p. 1 

# OAR Box 1828 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 26 ) ll-K - (B ) -1 4 Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 7

Printed 11/12/2008 11:12:48 AM Sheet 26 of 325P. 2 

# « »< ?

"-K-CB3-1 4 INDUSTRIAL BOILE RINFORMA L ANALYSI S WORKING GROUP . Lette r fro

m J.D . Mobley , EPArPT B t o Distribution . Novembe r 6 , 1979 . THI S INFORMATION

CA N B E FOUND I

N DOCKE T A-79-02 , ITE

M II-K-(B)-1 4
#### LEWIS, asse. v. ASH, et *al.*

June *19,*1837.

*Rule to show cause why the fieri facias should not he set*aside, *and to open the judgment,*

A judgment entered against all the obligors in a joint and several bond, by virtue of a warrant of attorney, one of them being dead, is irregular, and will be wholly set aside.

The court will not permit the judgment to stand against the survivors.

THE case was this: Joseph, Penrose, Rebecca, Caleb L., and William G. Ash executed their joint and several bond to the obligee, conditioned for the payment of 1500 dollars, accompanied by a warrant of attorney, by virtue of which judgment was entered against all the defendants on October 16th, 1836. A *fieri fiadas*against all the defendants issued to June term, 1837. But it appeared by due proof that William G. Ash, one of the defendants, died on the 2d day of June, 1836, consequently before the entry of the judgment. The surviving defendants obtained this rule to show cause.

*Stillé,*for plaintiff.

*II. M. Phillips,*for defendants.

*111For the plaintiff it was said, that the judgment and execution should stand as to the surviving defendants; and for the defendants it was contended that the whole was irregular.

Pee Curiam.—

The warrant of attorney authorized the entry of either a *joint*or a *several*judgment on the bond. The plaintiff did not enter a several judgment, but a *joint one.*At the time of so doing, one of the obligors was dead. The judgment was therefore clearly irregular, and must be opened as to all the defendants, and the *fieri facias*of course must then be set aside. We have no power to comply with the suggestion of the plaintiff’s counsel, as to leaving the judgment stand as to the surviving defendants. The judgment being *joint,*what is irregular as to one, is so in relation to all

Rule absolute.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 6470** 

LEVON TODD , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. LEWIS SMITH , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Asheville
. Robert J. Conrad, Jr. , District Judge. ( 1:12

- cv - 00025

- RJC )

Submitted : July 18, 2013 Decided: July 23, 2013

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD , Circuit Judges.

Remanded by un published per curiam opinion
.
Levon Todd , Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee
. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Levon Todd seeks to appeal the district court ’ s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal
. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A)
. The district court may, however, extend the time for filing a notice o f appeal if a party so moves within thirty days after expiration of the original appeal period and demonstrates excusable neglect or good cause for the extension. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A)(i)

- (ii); Washington v. Bumgarner , 882 F.2d 899, 900

– 01 (4th Cir. 1989). The district court’s order dismissing Todd’s § 2254 petition was entered on the docket on January 14, 2013
. Thus, Todd had until February 13, 2013 to file a notice of appeal. The notice of appeal was filed , at the earliest, on February 23 , 2013
. * Because Todd ’s notice of appeal was filed beyond the expiration of the appeal period but within the thirty

- day excusable neglect period, w e construe as a timely request for an

* Although Todd’s notice of appeal indicates it was signed on February 23, 2013, Todd indicates in his informal brief that his notice of appeal was placed in his institution’s internal mailing system for mailing on March 7, 2013. See Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988) (holding that a pro se prisoner’s notice of appeal is considered filed the moment it is delivered to prison authorities for mailing to the court).3 extension of time the letter accompanying Todd’s notice of appeal
. Accordingly , we remand this case to the district court for the limited purpose of determining whether Todd has demonstrated excusable neglect or good cause warranting an extension of the appeal period. The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further consideration.

REMANDED
Exhibit 10.11.14


 


FIRST AMENDMENT TO SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT


 


This First
Amendment to Subscription Agreement (this “Agreement”), dated January 24, 2007,
amends that certain Subscription Agreement (the “Subscription Agreement”) dated
effective as of November 15, 2007 by and between Education Media, Inc.,
a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Daniel A. Moore (“Buyer”).


 


The parties
agree as follows:


 


1.     Capitalized
terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in
the Subscription Agreement.


 


2.     The
Consulting Contract is hereby amended as follows:


 


a.               RECITALS:
“WHEREAS, Buyer wishes to
purchase from the Company 184,767 shares of the Company’s Common Stock, par
value $0.0001 per share (the “Shares”); and


 


WHEREAS,
the Buyer wishes to purchase the Shares from the Company and the Company wishes
to sell the Shares to the Buyer on the terms and subject to the conditions set
forth in this Agreement.”


 


b.     Section 2.2  Purchase
Price: “As payment in full for the Shares being purchased under this
Agreement and against delivery of the certificates therefor, simultaneous with
the execution hereof, Buyer shall pay $1847.70 to the Company by wire transfer
of immediately available funds or by such other method as may be reasonably
acceptable to the Company, (the “Purchase Price”).”


 


3.   In all other respects the Subscription Agreement remains
unchanged and in full force and effect.


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this
Agreement to be effective as of the date first set forth above.


 


	
   

  	
  EDUCATION MEDIA, INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/  Peter
  Kirsch

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Name: Peter Kirsch

  
	
   

  	
  Title: Chief Executive Officer

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  DANIEL A. MOORE

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  /s/ 
  Daniel A. Moore
Exhibit 23

            Consents of Independent Public Accountants

G. BRAD BECKSTEAD
Certified Public Accountant
                                                330 E. Warm Springs
                                                Las Vegas, NV 89119
                                                       702.528.1984
                                                425.928.2877 (efax)





May 4, 2001


To Whom It May Concern:

The firm of G. Brad Beckstead, CPA, consents to the inclusion of my
report  of  May 4, 2001, on the Financial Statements of  Media  and
Entertainment.com, Inc. for the three months ending March 31, 2001,
in  any filings which are necessary now or in the near future to be
filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission.

Signed,

/s/G. Brad Beckstead, CPA

G. Brad Beckstead, CPA
Before the Second Division,

June 6, 1950

No. 54380.

#### Alfred T. Cole et al. *v.*United States,

protests 138756-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protests were dismissed.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CARINA CONERLY; JAMES CONERLY; MARILYN TILLMAN

- CONERLY; M. T., a minor,

Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

v.

SHARIF R. TARPIN , et al.
,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 23

- 15297

D.C. No. 2:22

- cv
- 01525

- TLN

- CKD

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 17, 2024 * *

Before: WARDLAW , BADE, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Carina Conerly, James Conerly, and Marilyn Tillman

- Conerly appeal pro se
from the district court’s judgment dismissing their action alleging federal claims

. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo

. Puri v. Khalsa
, 844 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2017) (dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

SEP 23 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 23

- 15297

Procedure 12(b)(6)) ; Omar v. Sea

- Land Serv., Inc. , 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir.
1987) ( sua sponte dismissal for failure to state a claim) . We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ action because plaintiffs
failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal
, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (explaining that, to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must
contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted))

. We reject as meritless plaintiffs’ contentions that the district court was
biased against plaintiffs.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright
, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Jones’s request for reimbursement of costs and fees, set forth in Jones’s
answering brief, is denied without prejudice to filing a bill of costs or a post

judgment motion for fees

. All other pending motions and requests are denied

.
AFFIRMED

.
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document







 



 
 

Exhibit 10.3.13.4    
    


November 19,
2007 


Jeff
Elias

298 N. Wiget Lane

Walnut Creek, CA 94598 


Jeff:



As
we discussed, starting December 1, 2007, you will be reimbursed up to $3,000/month (grossed-up) for commuting expenses. This is to assist you with lodging, air travel, car
expense and meals. 



	Regards,	 	 
	

/s/  MIKE WILLIS      
 Mike Willis

Chairman & CEO	
 	

 













QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.3.13.4
#### Rat Bergman *v.*United States

No. 6615.

Entry No. 727430.

Invoice dated Redditch, England, October 16, 1941.

Certified October 23, 1941.

Entered at New York, N. Y., December 1, 1941.

(Decided December 12, 1946)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

. Moldison, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the 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 here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

•Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION






<PAGE>



                                  Exhibit 32.2

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


In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of Fuel,  Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the  period  ending  March 31,  2014 as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report")  I,  Michael M. Butler,
Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 USC Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to the best of my knowledge and belief:

(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.


Dated: May 15, 2014


/s/Michael R. Butler
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael R. Butler (Principal Accounting Officer)


This  certification  accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  be deemed  filed by the  Company  for  purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
No. 40537.

#### Protests 926513-G, etc., of Elliot, Greene & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The record showed that the yarns consist of 29.8 percent silk and 70.2 percent cellulose nitrate compound and that they are made from finished or degummed silk rather than from raw silk. The protests were therefore overruled.