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

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       1,637,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,003,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   106,000
<INVENTORY>                                  1,674,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,289,000
<PP&E>                                       2,966,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 802,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,435,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,934,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    21,634,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,435,000
<SALES>                                     10,631,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,631,000
<CGS>                                        5,641,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,641,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             7,127,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               242,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              27,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,406,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,413,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,413,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.11)


</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5.4.

1 F ED . R. C IV. P. 50. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-10281 Summary Calendar
ALFRED TREJO Plaintiff - Appellant v. DONALD L. COMPTON; ET AL Defendants DONALD L. COMPTON, Vocational Instructor Defendant - Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

5:04-CV-80 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Alfred Trejo, a Texas prisoner, appeals the district court’s judgment as a matter of law 1 against his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim. Trejo had brought suit United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D November 14, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 06-10281

2 Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982).
3 SeePricev. Marathon CheeseCorp., 119 F.3d 330, 333 (5th Cir. 1997) (“We reviewthe district court's decision to grantjudgment as a matter of lawde novo, applying the same legal standard as the district court.”).

4 Richardson v. Henry, 902 F.2d 414, 416 (5th Cir. 1990).
5 Id. at 416. 2 against Compton, a prison vocational instructor, claiming that a table router accident in carpentry class that left him with severed fingers was caused by Compton’s deliberate indifference to his safety. Trejo first argues that the district court erred in denying his request for appointment of counsel. A trial court is not required to appoint counsel for an indigent plaintiff asserting a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless the case presents exceptional circumstances. 2 The district court, in a written order, considered the factors for determining whether to appoint counsel in this case and its decision was not an abuse ofdiscretion. Accordingly, the district court’s denial of Trejo’s request for counsel is AFFIRMED. Regarding Trejo’s appeal from the district court’sjudgment as a matter of law, we cannot conduct the proper de novo review 3 without a copy of the transcript of the trial proceedings. We have held that “[t]he failure of an appellant to provide a transcript isa proper ground for dismissal ofthe appeal.”4 However, in that case the court noted that the appellant, after the district court denied his motion for a transcript, did not reurge the motion with this court. 5 Here, in c

ontrast, Trejo did reurge his request for the transcript at the Government’s expense with this court. We denied his request, finding the trial transcript was not necessary for Trejo’s preparation of his brief. It is now plain that the transcript is necessary.No. 06-10281

3 Accordingly, we ORDER that the transcript be provided to Trejo at the Government’s expense and al low both Trejo and Compton time to file briefs prepared with the benefit of the transcript.
Exhibit 32.1





Certification of CEO and CFO

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-KSB of Real Estate Associates Limited VII (the "Partnership"), for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Martha L. Long, as the equivalent of the chief executive officer of the Partnership, and Stephen B. Waters, as the equivalent of the chief financial officer of the Partnership, each hereby certifies, 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 his 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 Partnership.



| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | /s/Martha L. Long      
| | Name: Martha L. Long   
| | Date: March 31, 2008   
| |                        
| | /s/Stephen B. Waters   
| | Name: Stephen B. Waters
| | Date: March 31, 2008   



This certification is furnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

SUSAN BUDD,

Appellant,

v.

BRUCE G. BUDD,

Appellee.

No. 4D16-1300

[July 6, 2017]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Nicholas R. Lopane, Judge; L.T. Case No. FMCE14-

005445(33).

Robin Bresky and Jonathan Mann of the Law Offices of Robin Bresky, 

Boca Raton, for appellant.

Terrence P. O'Connor of Morgan, Carratt & O'Connor, P.A., Fort 

Lauderdale, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CIKLIN, KLINGENSMITH, JJ., and METZGER, ELIZABETH A., Associate Judge, 

concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Page
                Sixty Nine





**Exhibit
      32.1**





**Statement
      of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.**§
**1350**








In
      connection with the Annual Report of
      Highlands Bankshares, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period
      ending December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
      on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, as the chief executive
      officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





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








/s/
                C.E. PorterDate:
                March 22, 2007
            C.E.
                Porter, Chief Executive Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Darryl Banks, Appellant.

[614 NYS2d 163]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Coffinas, J.), rendered October 27, 1992, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was convicted of breaking or entering a building with the intent to commit a felony or larceny therein (NC Gen Stats § 14-54 [a]) in the State of North Carolina in 1987. Such an act would constitute a degree of burglary in New York, all forms of which are felonies here *(People v Parker,*41 NY2d 21, 24-25). Thus, contrary to the defendant’s contentions, he was properly adjudicated a second felony offender based on the North Carolina conviction *(see,*Penal Law §§ 70.06, 140.20-140.30). Moreover, the record clearly reveals that the defendant was specifically informed at the time he entered his plea that if it were discovered that he had been convicted of a prior felony, he would be subject to different or additional punishment. Accordingly, the defendant cannot now claim that he was not so advised or that the court violated the plea agreement when it imposed a harsher sentence than the one promised once it learned that the defendant indeed had a prior felony conviction *(see, People v Atkinson,*127 AD2d 841). Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT



The Board of Directors and Shareholders
Cabre Corp:


We have audited the consolidated balance sheets of Cabre Corp and 
subsidiaries as of May 31, 1997 and 1996, and the related statements of 
operations, shareholders' equity and cash flows for the years then 
ended.  These consolidated financial statements are the responsibility 
of the Company's management.  Our responsibility is to express an 
opinion on these consolidated financial statements based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing 
standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audits 
to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements 
are free of material misstatement.  An audit includes examining, on a 
test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the 
financial statements.  An audit also includes assessing the accounting 
principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as 
evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.  We believe 
that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above 
present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of 
Cabre Corp and subsidiaries at May 31, 1997 and 1996 and the results of 
their operations and their cash flows for the years then ended, in 
conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.

                                  						Jackson & Rhodes, P.C.



Dallas, Texas
July 18,1997
#### Tex M. ARMENTOR v. FRED C. BENTON INDUSTRIAL REPAIRS et al.

No. 60785.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 4, 1977.

In re: Tex M. Armentor applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Jefferson. 349 So.2d 367.

Writ denied.
254 La. 509

#### STATE of Louisiana in the interest of William Louis HARRELL.

No. 49982.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 8, 1969.

In re William Louis Harrell applying for writ of habeas corpus.

The petition of the relator in the above entitled and numbered case having been duly considered,

It is ordered that a writ of certiorari issue herein, directing the Honorable James C. Gulotta, Leo B. Blessing and James P. O’Connor, Judges of the Juvenile Court for the Parish of Orleans, to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on or before the 14th day of October, 1969, the record in duplicate, or a certified copy of the record in duplicate, of the proceedings complained of by the relator herein, to the end that the validity of said proceedings may be ascertained.

It is further ordered that the aforesaid Judge of said Court and the respondent shall show cause, .in this court, on the date aforesaid, at 11 o’clock A.M., why the relief prayed for in the petition of the relator should not be granted.

It is further ordered that, in the meantime and until the further orders of this court all proceedings against the relator in said Juvenile Court shall be stayed and suspended.

Granted with stay order.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED  PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended March 31, 2007 (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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/ Heidi ONeil

Heidi ONeilDirector of Finance and Administration
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, OC Kim, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Franklin Wireless Corp.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
statement of 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 annual report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

        a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

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

        c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

        a. All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

        b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
controls.

Date: September 19, 2007                             /s/ OC Kim
                                                     ----------
                                                     OC Kim, President
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1478 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 regarding the definition of 

a high need local educational agency, the definition of a Hispanic-serving 

institution, and the 2-year wait out period for certain grant recipients. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 25, 2005 

Mr. DOMENICI introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 regarding 

the definition of a high need local educational agency, 

the definition of a Hispanic-serving institution, and the 

2-year wait out period for certain grant recipients. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Improving Educational 

5 Opportunities for All Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. HIGH NEED LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY. 

7 Section 201(b)(2) of the Higher Education Act of 

8 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1021(b)(2)) is amended— 
2 

•S 1478 IS

1 (1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘or’’ after 

2 the semicolon; 

3 (2) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period 

4 and inserting a semicolon; and 

5 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(D) a high percentage of students who 

7 are— 

8 ‘‘(i) minority students; or 

9 ‘‘(ii) of limited English proficiency; 

10 ‘‘(E) a rural population, as defined by the 

11 Bureau of the Census; or 

12 ‘‘(F) a high percentage of Native American 

13 students.’’. 

14 SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF A HISPANIC-SERVING INSTITUTION. 

15 Section 502(a)(5) of the Higher Education Act of 

16 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1101a(a)(5)) is amended— 

17 (1) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ‘‘and’’ 

18 after the semicolon; 

19 (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘‘; and’’ 

20 and inserting a period; and 

21 (3) by striking subparagraph (C). 

22 SEC. 4. ELIMINATION OF THE 2-YEAR WAIT OUT PERIOD 

23 FOR GRANT RECIPIENTS. 

24 Section 504(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 

25 (20 U.S.C. 1101c(a)) is amended— 
3 

•S 1478 IS

1 (1) by striking ‘‘PERIOD.—’’ and all that fol2 lows through ‘‘The Secretary’’ and inserting ‘‘PE3 RIOD.—The Secretary’’; and 

4 (2) by striking paragraph (2). 

Æ
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

Certification of Treasurer



I, Ramon Chimelis, Treasurer, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Big Sky Industries II, Inc.;

2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) 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 the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the 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.



Dated: January 13, 2009



/s/ Ramon Chimelis

Ramon Chimelis, Treasurer
EXHIBIT 11.1


                     AMERICAN PHYSICIANS SERVICE GROUP, INC.
                       COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE
               FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND 1995



(In thousands, except earnings per share)    
                                                       Primary    Fully Diluted
                                                       Earnings       Earnings
                                                      Per Share      Per Share
                                                      ----------     -----------
1996          
----
Net Income applicable to common stock .................  $ 1,924         1,924

Average number of shares outstanding ..................    4,025         4,025
Average stock option shares ...........................      244           296
                                                          ------        ------

    Shares for earnings calculation ...................    4,269         4,321

Net income per share ..................................   $ 0.45          0.45
                                                          ======        ======



1995                                                                            
----
Net Income applicable to common stock .................  $ 2,024         2,024

Average number of shares outstanding ..................    3,480         3,480
Average stock option shares ...........................      363           683
                                                           -----        ------

    Shares for earnings calculation ...................    3,843         4,163

Net income per share ..................................   $ 0.53          0.49
                                                          ======        ======




NOTE:
Primary and fully diluted income per share were computed by dividing
net income by the average number of shares outstanding plus the common
stock equivalents which, would arise from the exercise of dilutive stock 
options.