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

<ARTICLE>                             5
<LEGEND>                           This schedule contains summary
                                   financial information extracted from the
                                   Balance Sheet and Statement of Operations and
                                   Retained Deficit and is qualified in its
                                   entirety by reference to such financial
                                   statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                             0000021610
<NAME>                            RANGER INDUSTRIES, INC.
       

<S>                              <C>    
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                    Jan-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                      Mar-31-1998
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     3-mos
<CASH>                            763,241
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                       3,446
<ALLOWANCES>                            0
<INVENTORY>                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  778,180
<PP&E>                                  0
<DEPRECIATION>                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    778,180
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              25,182
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                           47,886
<OTHER-SE>                        705,112
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      778,180
<SALES>                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        0
<CGS>                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      22,092
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                (3,764)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  (18,328)
<INCOME-TAX>                        2,500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              (20,828)
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                     (20,828)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                       (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                       (.01)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1





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 this Annual Report on Form 10-K of GHN Agrispan Holding Company (the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date 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 her 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 operation of the Company.





Date:  March 31, 2011By:
/s/ Xu YizhenName:  Xu YizhenTitle:  Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
TO: RCRA Docket EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0426

FROM: Richard Huggins Jr.

On August 25, 2011, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (ORCR) staff met with Walmart to 

discuss the challenges they face when complying with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

(RCRA). Some of the specific topics discussed were sustainability, waste characterization, 

pharmaceuticals, transportation, electronics, aerosol cans, episodic generation, and reverse logistics.

Attendees:

Ross Elliot, Betsy Devlin, Charlotte Mooney, Richard Huggins Jr., Marilyn Goode, Kristin Fitzgerald, Jim 

O’Leary, Jessica Young (ORCR), David Nicholas (PARMS)

Rich Dailey, Mike Stephenson, and Rick Leahy (Walmart)
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texa s

December 8, 2017

No. 04

- 17

- 00658

- CV

Mauro VILLARREAL, Appellant

v.

RIO GRANDE CITY MAYOR Joel Villarreal and Rio Grande City Commissioners Arcadio J. Salinas, III, Place 1; Rey Ramirez, Place 2; Hernan Garza, III, Place 3; and Dave Jones, Place 4, Appellee s

From the 229th Judicial District Court, Starr County, Texas

Trial Court No. DC

- 17

- 134 Honorable J.R. "Bobby" Flores, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file its brief is GRANTED. Appellant’s brief is due January 4, 2018.

_________________________________ Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 8th day of December, 2017

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
The State of T /s



# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

July 24, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00455

- CR

Abraham SANCHEZ

, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

, Appellee

From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2014CR7645 Honorable Melisa Skinner, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The trial court imposed sentence on April 15, 2015 ; A ppellant had thirty days to file a
motion for new trial. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 21.4(a) ; Rodarte v. State , 860 S.W.2d 108, 109 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) . Because the clerk’s record in this appeal does not show A ppellant timely
file d a motion for new trial, the notice of appeal was due to be filed on May 15 , 201 5

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.2(a)(1). The appellant’s notice of appeal was filed with the trial court on July 20

, 2015

. A timely notice of appeal is necessary to invoke a court of appeals’ jurisdiction. Olivo v.
State , 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Absent a timely motion for new trial, a defendant’s notice of appeal is timely filed if filed within thirty days after (1) the day sentence is imposed or suspended in open court, or (2) the day the trial court enters an appealable order. See
T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.2; Olivo , 918 S.W.2d at 522. In this case, the appellate record does not show
that A ppellant’s notice of appeal was timely filed.

A late notice of appeal may be considered timely so as to invoke a court of appeal’s jurisdiction if:

(1) it is filed within fifteen days of the last day allowed for filing; (2) a motion for extension of time is filed in the court of appeals within fifteen days of the last day allowed for filing the notice of appeal; and (3) the court of appeals grants the motion for extension of t ime.Olivo

, 9 18 S.W.2d at 522 ; see also Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals , 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (stating that an out

- of

- time appeal from a final felony conviction may be sought by filing a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to article 11. 07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure).

Therefore, we ORDER A ppellant to show cause in writing within FIFTEEN DAYS of the date of this order why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Olivo

, 918 S.W.2d at 522 ; Ater , 802 S .W.2d at 243.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 24th day of July, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 16-17339

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:16-cr-00220-WSD-JFK-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

LEODEGARIO AMBRIZ-GUZMAN,

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________

(August 3, 2017)

Before MARCUS, WILLIAM PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Leodegario Ambriz-Guzman appeals his sentence of 37 months of 

imprisonment for reentering the United States illegally a second time after being 

Case: 16-17339 Date Filed: 08/03/2017 Page: 1 of 3 
2

deported for an aggravated felony. 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2). Ambriz challenges 

the substantive reasonableness of his sentence. We affirm.

In 1998, Ambriz, a native and citizen of Mexico, entered the United States 

without permission and, in 2004, he was convicted of trafficking more than 400 

grams of cocaine. After Ambriz served four years of his twelve-year sentence, 

officials deported him to Mexico. Three months later, Ambriz attempted to reenter 

the United States, but officials apprehended him at the border and he was

convicted of reentering the country illegally. After he served 33 months in prison,

Ambriz was deported again to his homeland. Undeterred, Ambriz reentered the 

United States illegally a second time, and when confronted by Georgia officers, he 

lied about his identity and possessed false identification documents. 

The district court did not abuse its discretion. The district court reasonably 

determined that a sentence at the low end of Ambriz’s advisory guideline range of 

37 to 46 months of imprisonment was required to account for his criminal history,

to reflect the seriousness of and to punish him for entering the United States 

illegally a third time, to deter him and other aliens from committing future similar 

offenses, and to promote respect for the law, which he had flouted by possessing 

false identification documents. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553. Ambriz requested a 

downward variance to 24 months of imprisonment on the ground that he reentered

the country to escape the cartel in his hometown of Morelia, but the district court 

Case: 16-17339 Date Filed: 08/03/2017 Page: 2 of 3 
3

was entitled to discredit Ambriz’s argument because he acknowledged he could 

relocate to Mexico City. Ambriz’s sentence, which is well below his maximum 

statutory sentence of 20 years of imprisonment, is reasonable. See United States v. 

Gonzalez, 550 F.3d 1319, 1324 (11th Cir. 2008).

We AFFIRM Ambriz’s sentence.

Case: 16-17339 Date Filed: 08/03/2017 Page: 3 of 3
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

January 21, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL PATRICK CORRIGAN,

also known as Pat Corrigan,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 14-1152

(D. of Colo.)

(D.C. No. 1:12-CR-00221-SJJ-1)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before LUCERO, TYMKOVICH, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges. 

Michael Patrick Corrigan is currently serving a 56-month sentence after

pleading guilty to four counts of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 and

18 U.S.C. § 2. Mr. Corrigan appeals the district court’s judgment and sentence,

claiming that the district court failed to make a clear and independent ruling as

required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(3)(B) on the disputed issue

of the amount of loss attributable to Mr. Corrigan’s fraud. The government

agrees and also asks us to remand to the district court for resentencing. After a

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,

however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th

Cir. R. 32.1.
careful review of the record, we agree there was not a “clear and independent

ruling by the district court on [this] critical disputed fact” and remand is

necessary. United States v. Williams, 374 F.3d 941, 947 (10th Cir. 2004); see

also United States v. Schmidt, 244 F. App’x 902, 906–07 (10th Cir. 2007)

(finding the district court accepted the presentence investigation report’s findings

on the disputed issue of loss amount without independent inquiry and remanding

for resentencing). 

Accordingly, exercising our jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and

3742(a), we REMAND for further proceedings, with instructions to vacate the

sentence and resentence in accordance with this order and judgment. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT,

Timothy M. Tymkovich

Circuit Judge

-2-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                            5324
<SECURITIES>                                      4400
<RECEIVABLES>                                     4744
<ALLOWANCES>                                        99
<INVENTORY>                                       4597
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 20841
<PP&E>                                            3499
<DEPRECIATION>                                    2163
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   24973
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             3810
<BONDS>                                            185
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           739
<OTHER-SE>                                       18043
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     24973
<SALES>                                          21638
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 21638
<CGS>                                             9571
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     9571
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  6611
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (224)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   5680
<INCOME-TAX>                                      2181
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               3499
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      3499
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .92
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .87
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 219 (Thursday, November 13, 1997)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 60993]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30110]



[[Page 60991]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part VII





The President





_______________________________________________________________________



Notice of November 12, 1997--Continuation of Emergency Regarding 
Weapons of Mass Destruction


                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 219 / Thursday, November 13, 1997 / 
Presidential Documents

___________________________________________________________________

Title 3--
The President

[[Page 60993]]

                Notice of November 12, 1997

                
Continuation of Emergency Regarding Weapons of 
                Mass
                Destruction

                On November 14, 1994, by Executive Order 12938, I 
                declared a national emergency with respect to the 
                unusual and extraordinary threat to the national 
                security, foreign policy, and economy of the United 
                States posed by the proliferation of nuclear, 
                biological, and chemical weapons (``weapons of mass 
                destruction'') and the means of delivering such 
                weapons. Because the proliferation of weapons of mass 
                destruction and the means of delivering them continue 
                to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the 
                national security, foreign policy, and economy of the 
                United States, the national emergency declared on 
                November 14, 1994, and extended on November 14, 1995 
                and November 14, 1996, must continue in effect beyond 
                November 14, 1997. Therefore, in accordance with 
                section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 
                U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing the national emergency 
                declared in Executive Order 12938.

                This notice shall be published in the Federal Register 
                and transmitted to the Congress.

                    (Presidential Sig.)<Clinton1><Clinton2>

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                     November 12, 1997.

[FR Doc. 97-30110
Filed 11-12-97; 11:40 am]
Billing code 3195-01-P
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-40092

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

VALENTIN JAIMES-OCAMPO,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:95CR34-001

- - - - - - - - - -

July 17, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The defendant appeals his sentence for illegal reentry of a

criminal alien, a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1). We

have reviewed the record and the briefs and we find no abuse of

discretion on the part of the district court. See United States

v. Ashburn, 38 F.3d 803, 807 (5th Cir. 1994)(en banc), cert.

denied, 115 S. Ct. 1969 (1995). 

AFFIRMED.
U.S.Department of Transportation Officeofthe Secretory 1ofTransportation .: L. subject Essential Air Service at Jonesboro, Arkansas

From: Kevin D. Schlemmer, Chief EAS & Domestic Analysis, X-53 To: Dockets Operations, M-30 

# Memorandum

Date: November 26, 2013 Reply to A.J. Muldoon, X-53 Attn. of: Ext. 61058 By Order 2013-10-12 (October 22, 2013), the Departmentrequested that air carriers submitproposals to provide Essential Air Service (EAS) at Jonesboro, AR, no later than November 26,2013. OnNovember 25,2013, we received a request from SeaPort Airlines to extendthe deadline for proposals by one week, to December 3, 2013. The Department finds this request reasonable and has decided to grant it. Therefore, proposals for EAS at Jonesboro, AR, should nowbe submittedno later than December 3, 2013.
EXHIBIT 31.1

                           CERTIFICATIONS 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 Diversified Product Inspections, Inc.
(the  "Company")  on  Form  10-QSB  for the period ending June 30, 2003, as
filed  with  the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the
"Report"),  the undersigned, Chief Executive Officer and 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 3(a) or 15(d) of
     the  Securities  and  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/ John Van-Zyll
                         ____________________________________________
                         By: John Van-Zyll
                         Chief Executive Officer/Chief Financial Officer
                         August 10, 2003
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 218 (Wednesday, November 12, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 60712]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-29850]


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

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION


Notice of Agency Meeting; Sunshine Act Meeting

    Pursuant to the provisions of the ``Government in the Sunshine 
Act'' (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that at 2:30 p.m. on 
Wednesday, November 5, 1997, the Board of Directors of the Federal 
Deposit Insurance Corporation met in closed session to consider matters 
relating to the Corporation's corporate and supervisory activities.
    In calling the meeting, the Board determined, on motion of Director 
Joseph H. Neely (Appointive), seconded by Director Ellen S. Seidman 
(Director, Office of Thrift Supervision), concurred in by Ms. Judy 
Walter, acting in the place and stead of Director Eugene A. Ludwig 
(Comptroller of the Currency), and Acting Chairman Andrew C. Hove, Jr., 
that Corporation business required its consideration of the matters on 
less than seven days' notice to the public; that no earlier notice of 
the meeting was practicable; that the public interest did not require 
consideration of the matters in a meeting open to public observation; 
and that the matters could be considered in a closed meeting by 
authority of subsections (c)(2), (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), and 
(c)(9)(A)(ii) of the ``Government in the Sunshine Act'' (5 U.S.C. 
552b(c)(2), (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), and (c)(9)(A)(ii)).
    The meeting was held in the Board Room of the FDIC Building located 
at 550-17th Street, N.W., Washington, DC.

    Dated: November 6, 1997.

    Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
James D. LaPierre,
Deputy Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-29850 Filed 11-7-97; 11:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6714-01-M
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2011-NM-050-AD

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific 

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of 

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)