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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>                     
<CIK>                         0000753557
<NAME>                        LBO Capital Corp.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   Dec-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                     1
<CASH>                                             73
<SECURITIES>                                   46,023
<RECEIVABLES>                                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               46,096     
<PP&E>                                              0
<DEPRECIATION>                                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 46,096
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         645,193
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                        1,210    
<OTHER-SE>                                   (600,307)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   46,096
<SALES>                                             0                                        
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    0
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   6,611
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             52,843
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (59,454)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 0
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (59,454)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.00)
        


</TABLE>
#### CALANDRO DEVELOPMENT, INC. v. R. M. BUTLER CONTRACTORS, INC., et al.

No. 8360.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

Dec. 21, 1970.

Vincent J. Sotile, Talbot, Sotile & Car-mouche, Donaldsonville, for Elray Kocke Service, Inc., Linwood Himel and Eddie Esneaud.

Leon Gary, Jr., Landry, Landry & Gary, Baton Rouge, for Calandro Dev., Inc.

A. Leon Hebert, Hebert, Moss & Graphia, Baton Rouge, James H. Drury, Drury & Lozes, New Orleans, for United Bonding Ins. Co.

*536Robert J. Ziblich, George E. Mouledoux, Ziblich & Mouledoux, New Orleans, for R. M. Butler Contractors, Inc.

Norman L. Sisson, Baton Rouge, for Al-tex Ready Concrete Corp.

Glynn A. Long, Donaldsonville, for H. J. Truxillo, Inc.

James W. Bean, Bean & Rush, Lafayette, for Fountain Enterprises, Inc.

Marcel Livaudais, Jr., Loeb, Dillon & Livaudais, New Orleans, for Boudreaux-Ferguson Consulting Engineers, Inc. and Citizens Cas. Co. of N. Y.

ON MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL

Before LANDRY, ELLIS and BLANCHE, JJ.

BLANCHE, Judge.

A motion to dismiss the appeal of United Bonding Insurance Company has been filed by Altex Ready Mixed Concrete Corporation, plaintiff in reconvention and appellee, as to its claim in the amount of $15,917.66, together with legal interest at the rate of five per cent per annum from November 8, 1967, until paid and plus the sum of $4.00 for recording charges of respondent’s lien.

The grounds on which this motion to dismiss is based are identical to those set forth in the motion to dismiss filed by Elray Kocke Service, Inc.

For the same reasons expressed in our opinion, 243 So.2d 534, denying the motion of Elray Kocke Service, Inc., handed down this date, the motion of Altex Ready Mixed Concrete Corporation is denied at its cost.

Motion denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-2294

THERESA FORD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RIDGEDEN SUCCESS, INCORPORATED,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

DENNY’S, INCORPORATED; SUCCESS EMPLOYEE GROUP,

INCORPORATED,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Beaufort. Patrick Michael Duffy, District

Judge. (CA-04-1968-9)

Submitted: April 20, 2006 Decided: April 24, 2006

Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Theresa Ford, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Yager Jenkins, Stephanie E.

Lewis, NELSON, MULLINS, RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP, Charleston, South

Carolina, for Appellee.
- 2 -

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Theresa Ford seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying her claims of employment discrimination and wrongful

termination. We grant the Appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal

for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not

timely filed.

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), unless the district court extends the appeal

period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period

under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory

and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S.

257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220,

229 (1960)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on

August 31, 2005. The notice of appeal was filed on October 25,

2005. Because Ford failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to

obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we 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
Exhibit 32

Certifications of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

Section 1350

In connection
with the Annual Report of Material Sciences Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended February 28, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Clifford D. Nastas, 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 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.

Dated: May 14, 2010



By:

/s/    CLIFFORD D. NASTASClifford D. NastasChief Executive Officer


In connection with the Report,
I, James D. Pawlak, Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Corporate Controller and Corporate Secretary 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 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.

Dated: May 14, 2010



By:

/s/    JAMES D. PAWLAKJames D. PawlakVice President, Chief Financial Officer, Corporate Controller and Corporate Secretary




1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6951

JAMES R. EDGERTON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

SHERIFF OF FRANKLIN COUNTY; EARNEST H. SMITH,

Chief Jailer,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

FRANKLIN COUNTY JAIL,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District

Judge. (CA-94-327-5-CT-H)

Submitted: August 13, 1998 Decided: August 28, 1998

Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior

Circuit Judge.
2

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James R. Edgerton, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Harrison Sasser, III,

WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. Appellant’s case was referred to a

magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The

magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Appellant that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based

upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Appellant failed to

object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.

The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge’s

recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the

substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned

that failure to object will waive appellate review. See Wright v.

Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellant has waived appellate review

by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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.

AFFIRMED
A, M

NOS.

RECEIVED IN

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

MAY 08 2015

Brandon Scott Coppock

Abel Acosta,Clerk

§ In the Texas Court of

§ Criminal Appeals

§ at Austin, Texas

vs.

The State ofTexas

On Appeal from the Fifth' Court ofAppeals FILED IN

in Cause Nos. 05-13-00907-CR and 05-13-00908GQBRT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL?

HAY 112015

Appellant's Motion to Extend the

Time for Filing a Petition for Discretionary Review

Abel Acosta, Clerk

To the Honorable Judges ofsaid Court:

• Comes now Appellant, and respectfully requests that the time for filing a

Petition for Discretionary Review in the above-styled and numbered cause be

extended. In support ofthis motion Appellant would show:

I". OnApril 20, 2015, Appellant's conviction wasaffirmed by the Fifth Court

ofAppeals inCauseNos. 05-13-00907-CRand 05-13-00908-CRstyledBrandonScott

Coppock v. The State of Texas.

2. The present deadline for filing a Petition for Discretionary Review isMay

20, 2015. Appellant respectfully requests an extension of time untilJuly 20, 2015.
3. No previous extension oftime has been granted.

4. Appellantwould showthe Courtthat a reasonableexplanationexistsforthe

requested extension. Appellant is currently incarcerated in theTexas Department of

Criminal Justice andhaslimited legal knowledge. Appellant must goto theunit law

library to research and draft the issues.

Wherefore, premises considered, Appellant respectfully requests thatthe time

for filing a Petition forDiscretionary Review be extended to July 20, 2015.

Respectfully submitted,

Brandon Scott Coppock, Appellant

# 12010703 North Tower 3 W 07

P.O. Box 660334

Dallas, TX 75266-0334

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy ofthe foregoing motion has been served on the

Dallas County District Attorney's Office, Appellate Division, 133 N. Riverfront

Blvd., LB 19, Dallas, Texas, 75207, by depositing same in the United States Mail,

Postage Prepaid on Mfey* <^ 2015.

Coppock, Appellant
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

STEVEN VLASICH,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

BURT HOFFMAN, Dr., individually and

in his official capacity,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 08-17311

D.C. No. 1:99-cv-06472-OWWWMW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Oliver W. Wanger, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 25, 2011** 

Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

Steven Vlasich, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment following a jury trial in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging

deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28

FILED

NOV 02 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-17311

U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s

evidentiary rulings. Nationwide Transp. Fin. v. Cass Info. Sys., Inc., 523 F.3d

1051, 1057-58 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding testimony from

Shuster and Rodriguez because it was irrelevant and cumulative. See Fed. R. Evid.

401-02, 701-02; Lutz v. Glendale Union High Sch., 403 F.3d 1061, 1071 (9th Cir.

2005) (“[T]he district court has broad authority to limit the number of witnesses on

a particular point to avoid cumulative evidence.”). 

Vlasich’s remaining contentions, including those concerning Hoffman’s

testimony about his military service, are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.
From: Richard Parker [mailto:richardparkerdc@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2011 6:09 PM
To: Andrew Delaski; Art Rosenfeld; Bob Smith; Brian Coffey; Caitlin Johnson; Carlos Siqueiros; Caskey, John; Chad Kennedy; Chris Bolduc; Chris Brown; Creevy, Jim; Dan Cohen; Daniel Young; Eduardo Robles; Edwards, Brenda; Eric Peterson; Freeman, Je remiah; Gary Fernstrom; Greg Rosenquist; Jennifer Tiedeman; Jerry Schoen; Jim Raba; Joanna Mauer; John Cymbalsky; Katie Coughlin; Matthew Nardotti; Maxine Savitz; Meg Waltner; Michael Rivest; Millure , Dave; Phil Harter; Polinski, Raymond; Richard W. Parker; Rob Greeson; Robert Berman; Robert van Bu skirk; Robin Roy; Ryan, Paul; Scott Beck; Steve Nadel; Steve Rosenstock; Ted Johnstone; Thomas Patzner; Thomas Petrosino; Tim Ballo; Vijay Tendulkar; Wes Patterson; Zhimei Luo Subject: LV Transformer Call;

Dear Colleagues,

Attached hot off the press are the updated and revised LCC/PBB and NIA results for low voltage transformers, DL 6-8, with engine ering scatterplots included. Pl ease note that a new TSL (TSL 7) has been added to reflect the NEMA prem ium EL. You will see th at the TSL numbering system is not listed in order of in creasing stringency.

See you on the call at 2:00 pm on Monday, Nov. 28.

All best, RIchard Parker Facilitator
#### Adam BRAZIEL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-799.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 2, 1971.

Appeal dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 67 Agreed to House (ATH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 67

         Designating membership on certain standing committees.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 4, 1993

Mr. Hoyer submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 
                               agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
         Designating membership on certain standing committees.

    Resolved, That the following named Members, Resident Commissioner, 
and Delegates, be, and they are hereby, elected to the following 
standing committees of the House of Representatives:
    Committee on Agriculture: Pat Williams, Montana; and Blanche M. 
Lambert, Arkansas.
    Committee on Government Operations: Floyd H. Flake, New York; James 
A. Hayes, Louisiana; Craig A. Washington, Texas; Barbara-Rose Collins, 
Michigan; Corrine Brown, Florida; Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky, 
Pennsylvania; Lynn C. Woolsey, California; [vacancy]; and [vacancy].
    Committee on Small Business: Maxine Waters, California; and 
[vacancy].
    Committee on Standards of Official Conduct: Jim McDermott, 
Washington, Chairman; George (Buddy) Darden, Georgia; Benjamin L. 
Cardin, Maryland; Kweisi Mfume, Maryland; Robert A. Borski, 
Pennsylvania; and Thomas C. Sawyer, Ohio.

                                 <all>
```
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
REQUIRED BY RULE 13a-14(a) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of International Wire Group, 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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrant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 registrant 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 registrant, 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 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
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrant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 registrant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 registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
 Dated: April 30, 2007
    
    /s/ GLENN J. HOLLERName:
    
    Glenn J. HollerTitle:
    
    Senior Vice President,Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
**Exhibit 12.1****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Bernardus Johannes Maria Verwaayen, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F/A of BT Group plc; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure 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) and15d-15(f)) for the company and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared;  (b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused suchinternal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, toprovide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and thepreparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generallyaccepted accounting principles;  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based onsuch evaluation; and  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company’s auditors and theaudit committee of the company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the company’s internal control over financial reporting.Date:March 19, 2008       /s/ Ben Verwaayen   Name: Bernardus Johannes Maria Verwaayen  Title: Chief Executive