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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
         This schedule contains summary information extracted from the statement
of financial  condition as of and for the years ended June 28, 1997 and June 29,
1996 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR           YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               JUN-29-1996    JUN-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                  JUL-02-1995    JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                    JUN-29-1996    JUN-28-1997  
<CASH>                          530,123        1,763,918
<SECURITIES>                    0              0
<RECEIVABLES>                   1,311,442      1,157,993
<ALLOWANCES>                       58,279      119,556
<INVENTORY>                     2,277,995      3,752,181
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                4,240,183      6,970,227
<PP&E>                          4,100,574      5,023,867
<DEPRECIATION>                  1,036,459        753,712
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  7,443,325     15,577,761
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           3,952,997      5,229,890
<BONDS>                         1,659,039      1,435,727  
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0              0
<PREFERRED>                             0              0
<COMMON>                           26,550         90,550
<OTHER-SE>                        904,739      8,221,594
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    7,443,325     15,577,761
<SALES>                        19,141,970     19,060,911 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>               19,210,465     19,112,702
<CGS>                          17,817,667     17,745,220
<TOTAL-COSTS>                  17,817,667     17,745,220
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                4,000,399      4,979,209
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   36,000        113,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                312,174        313,273
<INCOME-PRETAX>               (2,955,775)    (4,038,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                            0              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           (2,955,775)    (4,038,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                          0              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0              0
<CHANGES>                               0              0
<NET-INCOME>                  (2,955,775)    (4,038,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                      (1.19)          (.73)
<EPS-DILUTED>                      (1.19)          (.73)
        


</TABLE>
#### Sonia Feldmann RISOLIA v. ESTATE of Carlyle FELDMANN, Deceased.

No. 38935.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 224 So.2d 715.
**Exhibit99.1**

 

**CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

R. JackDeCrane, as Chief Executive Officer of DeCrane Holdings Co., a Delawarecorporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies that:

 

(1)               TheCompany’s periodic report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2003 (the“Form 10-Q”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2)               Theinformation contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| May 20, 2003 | By:    | /s/  R. Jack DeCrane |
|--------------|--------|---------------------------|
|         | Name:  | R. Jack  DeCrane          |
|         | Title: | Chief  Executive Officer  |

 

**A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906 has been provided to DeCrane Holdings Co. and will beretained by DeCrane Holdings Co. and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.**

** **

**This certification is being submitted to theSecurities and Exchange Commission solely for the purpose of complying withSection 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.  This certification shall not to be deemed“filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended (the “Exchange Act”), or otherwise subject to the liability of thatsection.  This certification does notconstitute a part of Registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-Q accompanying thiscertification and to which it is an exhibit.**

 

----
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement(Form
S-8 Nos. 333-80537 and 333-88183) pertaining to the Dave & Buster's, Inc. 1995
Stock Option Plan and Employee 401(k) Savings Plan of our report dated March 30,
2000 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Dave & Buster's,
Inc. included in the Annual Report(Form 10-K) for the year ended January 30,
2000.



                                                        /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Dallas, Texas
April 24, 2000
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

JOSEPH MORRIS PENA,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 09-50398

D.C. No. 2:08-cr-01257-PSG

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 19, 2010** 

Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

Joseph Morris Pena appeals from the 70-month sentence imposed following

his guilty-plea conviction for being an illegal alien found in the United States

following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

FILED

AUG 02 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-50398

Pena contends that the district court erred under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 

530 U.S. 466 (2000), by increasing his sentence on the basis of a prior conviction

that was neither proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt nor admitted. This

argument, however, is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S.

224 (1998), and this court’s subsequent cases holding that Almendarez-Torres has

not been overruled by subsequent Supreme Court decisions. See, e.g., United

States v. Almazan-Becerra, 482 F.3d 1085, 1091 (9th Cir. 2007).

Pena further contends that his sentence was unreasonable. Our review of the

record indicates that the district court did not procedurally err and that, under the

totality of the circumstances, the 70-month sentence at the low end of the

Guidelines was not substantively unreasonable. See United States v. Carty, 520

F.3d 984, 991-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc); see also United States v. Menyweather,

447 F.3d 625, 632-33 (9th Cir. 2006) (downward departure under U.S.S.G.

§ 5H1.6 based on family circumstances “generally involve[s] situations where the

defendant is an irreplaceable caretaker of children, elderly, and/or seriously ill

family members”) (quoting United States v. Leon, 341 F.3d 928, 931 (9th Cir.

2003)). The district court was not bound by the parties’ recommendations to

impose a below-Guidelines sentence. See, e.g., United States v. Hurt, 345 F.3d

1033, 1036 (9th Cir. 2003). Nor does the fact that Pena was offered and rejected a
3 09-50398

fast-track plea agreement that would have resulted in a lower Guidelines range

render his sentence unreasonable. See United States v. Vasquez-Landaver, 527

F.3d 798, 805 (9th Cir. 2008).

AFFIRMED.
#### STATE of Alabama v. Leonard R. LUCAS et al.

77-169.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

June 30, 1978.

Herndon Inge, Jr., Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Mobile, for appellant.

Samuel L. Stockman, Mobile, for appel-lees.

JONES, Justice.

Affirmed on the authority of *State v. Colley Corp.,*295 Ala. 204, 326 So.2d 120 (1976); and *Thornton v. City of Birmingham,*250 Ala. 651, 35 So.2d 545 (1948). See also *State v. Burroughs,*285 Ala. 177, 230 So.2d 235 (1970); and 29A C.J.S. *Eminent Domain*§ 273.

AFFIRMED.

TORBERT, C. J., and MADDOX, SHORES and BEATTY, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

L. SHAY KERNS-BARR, et al. : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. :

: No. 09-2420

WAL-MART STORES EAST. L.P., et al. :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 21 day of January, 2010, “Defendants’ Motion to Transfer st

Venue” (docket no. 5) is granted, 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The Clerk of Court is directed to

transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Middle District of

Pennsylvania.

BY THE COURT:

 /s/ Edmund V. Ludwig 

Edmund V. Ludwig, J.

Case 4:10-cv-00383-JFM Document 11 Filed 01/21/10 Page 1 of 1
### Ground-water resources of the Holbrook region, Arizona

By: Marshall A. HarrellEdwin Butt Eckel

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp836B

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf) 
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
EXHIBIT  32.02

                           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 Pangea Petroleum Corp. (the
"Company")  on  Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof ("Report"), the
undersigned,  in  the  capacities  and  on  the  dates  indicated  below, 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  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
Company.

Dated:  May  20,  2009                         /s/  Robert  Wilson
                                               -------------------
                                               Robert  Wilson,
                                               Chief  Financial  Officer
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 97-3458WA

_____________

Richard Stephenson Jarrett, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Western

* District of Arkansas.

Charles Kelly; Stephen Cox; Brian *

Fuller; Brandon McCaslin; Gary * [UNPUBLISHED]

Grimes; Jim Rush, *

*

Appellees. *

_____________

 Submitted: April 30, 1998

Filed: May 5, 1998

_____________

Before FAGG, BEAM, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

Richard Stephenson Jarrett appeals the district court's denial of Jarrett's motion

for a new trial in his civil rights suit. Having carefully reviewed the record and the

parties' briefs, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion. See

McKnight ex rel. Ludwig v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 36 F.3d 1396, 1400 (8th Cir. 1994)

(standard of review). We affirm the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
-2-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### Secundino ABUT, Appellant, v. CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Frank Aymonin, as Director of Zoning and Public Works Director of the City of Miami Beach, Florida, and Terco Properties of Miami Beach, Inc., Trustee, Appellees.

No. 77-2015.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Aug. 15, 1978.

Smith, Mandler, Smith, Werner & Jaco-bowitz, Jeffrey A. Sarrow and Steven R. Brownstein, Miami Beach, for appellant.

Joseph A. Wanick, City Atty. and Andrew H. Moriber, Asst. City Atty., for ap-pellees.

Before PEARSON and KEHOE, JJ., and PIERCE, WILLIAM C. (Ret.), Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal from an order quashing alternative writ of mandamus is affirmed upon authority of the rule stated in *Green v. Walter,*161 So.2d 830, 834 (Fla.1964).
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

AirNet Communications Corporation 

Melbourne,Florida 

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference inthe Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-115698 and 333-131280) and Form S-8 (No. 333-31468 and No. 333-109434) of AirNet Communications Corporation (the “Company”) of our report dated March 20, 2006, relating to thefinancial statements as of and for each of the two years ended December 31, 2005, which appear in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Our report contains an explanatory paragraph regarding the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern.

 

/s/    BDO SEIDMAN, LLP 

 

West Palm Beach, Florida 

March 23, 2006
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6656

CHARLES GWYN PAFFORD,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD ANGELONE; DANIEL T. MAHON,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge.

(CA-95-1229-R)

Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: August 6, 1996

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Gwyn Pafford, Appellant Pro Se. Wirt Peebles Marks, IV,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his habeas corpus petition, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988), as

amended by Act of Apr. 24, 1996, 29 U.S.C. § 2254 (Law Co-op.

Advance Sheet June 1996). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal; to the extent that

a certificate of appealability is required, we deny such a certificate. We dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. Pafford v.

Angelone, No. CA-95-1229-R (W.D. Va. Apr. 4, 1996). 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
#### MICHIGAN WISCONSIN PIPE LINE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Elaine Nettie Mary Young SPEARS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 2878.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Third Circuit.

Nov. 25, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 7, 1970.

Young & Burson, by I. J. Burson, Jr., Eunice, for defendant-appellant.

Shotwell, Brown & Sperry, by E. C. Stout, Monroe, and Garland, Dejean & Berggreen, by H. B. Dejean, Jr., Opelousa, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before SAVOY, HOOD and MILLER, IJ-

SAVOY, Judge.

This expropriation suit was consolidated for trial and appeal with the companion case of Michigan Wisconsin Pipe Line Company v. Miller, 229 So.2d 182 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1969), decided also on this date.

For the reasons assigned in the companion case, the judgment of the district court is amended so as to increase the award to defendant, Elaine Nettie Mary Young Spears, from $492.80 to $1,286.30, together with legal interest on all unpaid amounts from date of the taking, until paid. In all other respects the judgment of the district court is affirmed at plaintiff-appel-lee’s costs.

Amended and affirmed.

HOOD, J., dissents for reasons assigned in 229 So.2d 182 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1969).

On Application for Rehearing.

En Banc. Rehearing denied.

HOOD, J., is of the opinion that a rehearing should be granted.
EXHIBIT 23.1

                              ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
SITEL Corporation:

We consent to the  incorporation  by  reference in the  registration  statements
(Numbers 033-99434,  333-19069, 333-30635, 333-44781, and 333-78241) on Form S-8
of SITEL  Corporation  of our reports  dated  February 7, 2000,  relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of SITEL Corporation and subsidiaries as of December
31, 1998 and 1999,  and the related  consolidated  statements of income  (loss),
stockholders'  equity,  and cash  flows for each of the years in the  three-year
period ended December 31, 1999, and the related  schedule,  which reports appear
in the December 31, 1999, annual report on Form 10-K of SITEL Corporation.

                                                              KPMG LLP


Omaha, Nebraska
March 22, 2000
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of China Holdings, Inc. for the quarter ended June 30, 2008, I certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:  (1)the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of China Holdings, Inc. for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008, fairly presents in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of China Holdings, Inc.    By:/s/ Dempsey MorkName:Dempsey MorkTitle:Principal Executive Officer,
and DirectorDate:Oct. 1, 2008By:/s/ Dempsey MorkName:Dempsey MorkTitle:Principal Financial OfficerDate:Oct. 1, 2008
Exhibit
32.2





WRITTEN
STATEMENT


PURSUANT
TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In
connection with this Amendment No. 1 to Quarterly Report of China 3C Group and
its subsidiaries (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended March 31,
2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the “Report”), the undersigned, Jian Zhang, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b) 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.





December
24, 2009





/s/ Jian ZhangJian
      ZhangChief
      Financial Officer(Principal
      Accounting and Financial
Officer)
#### Donald LUNDY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-1381.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 16, 1978.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Harvey R. Schneider, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and John D. Cecilian, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See *Skelton v. State,*349 So.2d 193 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) and *Allen v. State,*317 So.2d 87 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975).

DOWNEY, C. J., and ANSTEAD and DAUKSCH, JJ„ concur.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: ...offshore wind technologies market report.**
 
2014-15 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018
 
SuDoc Number:E 9.16:W 68/2/
Item Number:0430-P-03 (online)
CGP systemNumber:001056749
 
September 17, 2018