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

<ARTICLE> 5
                      Ross Technology, Inc. and Subsidiary
                     Financial Data Schedule for Commercial
                          and Industrial Companies(*)
<LEGEND>
*THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS, THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-02-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           2,811
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,617
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,555
<INVENTORY>                                     16,308
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                37,067
<PP&E>                                          17,752
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,972
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  54,819
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           75,044
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            23
<OTHER-SE>                                    (20,248)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    54,819
<SALES>                                         83,104
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                83,104
<CGS>                                          107,951
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  107,951
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                59,433
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,472
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (85,752)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       953
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (86,705)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (86,705)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (3.71)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.71)     
        

</TABLE>
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 51 (Thursday, March 15, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15319-15320]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6212]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 1

[REG-130777-11]
RIN 1545-BK45

Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities Issued at a Premium; 
Hearing Cancellation

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Cancellation of notice of public hearing on proposed 
rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document cancels a public hearing on proposed regulations

[[Page 15320]]

(REG-130777-11), providing guidance on the tax treatment of Treasury 
Inflation-Protected Securities issued with more than a de minimis 
amount of premium.

DATES: The public hearing originally scheduled for March 28, 2012 at 10 
a.m., is cancelled.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Funmi Taylor of the Publications and 
Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel 
(Procedure and Administration), at (202) 622-7180 (not a toll-free 
number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-
reference to temporary regulations and notice of public hearing that 
appeared in the Federal Register on Monday, December 5, 2011 (76 FR 
75829), announced that a public hearing was scheduled for March 28, 
2012, at 10 a.m., in the IRS Auditorium, Internal Revenue Service 
Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The subject of 
the public hearing is under section 1275 of the Internal Revenue Code.
    The public comment period for these regulations expired on March 7, 
2012. The notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary 
regulations and notice of public hearing, instructed those interested 
in testifying at the public hearing to submit a request to speak and an 
outline of the topics to be addressed. As of Monday, March 12, 2012, no 
one has requested to speak. Therefore, the public hearing scheduled for 
March 28, 2012, is cancelled.

LaNita Van Dyke,
Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, 
Associate Chief Counsel (Procedures and Administration).
[FR Doc. 2012-6212 Filed 3-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
```
#### Evelyn Prater HARPER v. Glenn Everett HARPER.

No. 86-C-2396.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 9, 1987.

In re Harper, Glenn Everett; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court , of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 85-1185; Parish of Sabine, 11th Judicial District Court, Div. “A”, No. 33310.

Prior report: La.App., 496 So.2d 1369.

Denied.
#### STATE ex rel. Juan SURTAIN v. FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL.

No. 89-KH-0919.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 30, 1989.

In re Surtain, Juan; — Plaintiff(s); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District *1213Court, Div. “N”, No. 86-88; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 89-KH-0190.

Denied.
#### STATE ex rel. Donald Ray JOHNSON v. 19TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE.

No. 88-KH-1498.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 14, 1988.

In re Johnson, Donald Ray; applying for writ of mandamus, supervisory and/or remedial writ; Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court, Div. “L”, No. 5-88-349.

Granted. The district court is ordered to comply with this Court’s order of June 2, 1988, and to rule immediately on relator’s application for a writ of habeas corpus filed on May 17, 1988, and bearing docket number 5-88-349.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 Annual Report On Form 10-KSB/A,
Amendment No. 1 of Charys Holding Company, Inc. for the fiscal year ending April
30, 2006, I, Raymond J. Smith, Chief Financial Officer of Charys Holding
Company, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my
knowledge and belief, that:

     1.     Such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A, Amendment No. 1 for the fiscal
year ending April 30, 2006, 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A,
Amendment No. 1 for the fiscal year ending April 30, 2006, fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Charys Holding Company, Inc.

     Dated: August 28, 2006.

                                    /s/  Raymond J. Smith
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                                    Raymond J. Smith, Chief Financial Officer of
                                    Charys Holding Company, Inc.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          53,435
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   19,304
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,375)
<INVENTORY>                                     13,141
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,256
<PP&E>                                          18,234
<DEPRECIATION>                                (10,377)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 111,999
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,814
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      85,935
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   111,999
<SALES>                                        129,666
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               129,666
<CGS>                                           75,990
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   75,990
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                42,688
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (1,613)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,601
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,992
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,609
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,609
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.41


</TABLE>
#### Donald LeBLANC, and Patricia C. LeBlanc, et al. v. JANI-KING, INC., and ABC Insurance Company.

No. 89-C-0889.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 26, 1989.

In re LeBlanc, Donald; LeBlanc, Patricia; — Plaintiff(s); applying for writ of cer-tiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. CA 8857; Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court, Div. “J”, No. 83-3204.

Prior report: La.App., 538 So.2d 1156.

Denied.

DIXON, C.J., and CALOGERO and LEMMON, JJ., would grant the writ.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Frank, Alston and Senior Judge Coleman 

FRANCISCO J. GARCIA 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 1127-10-2 PER CURIAM 

 OCTOBER 26, 2010 

RBP CONSTRUCTION, INC. AND 

 NORTH AMERICAN SPECIALTY 

 INSURANCE COMPANY 

 FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Brody H. Reid; Seth R. Carrolli; Reid Goodwin, PLC; Geoff 

McDonald & Associates, P.C., on brief), for appellant. 

 (S. Vernon Priddy III; Two Rivers Law Group, P.C., on brief), for 

appellees. 

 Francisco J. Garcia appeals a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commission 

concluding he failed to establish his injury arose out of and in the course of his employment. We 

have reviewed the record and the commission’s opinion and find that this appeal is without 

merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the commission in its final opinion. See

Garcia v. RBP Constr., VWC File No. VA010-0242-1876 (Apr. 28, 2010). We dispense with 

oral argument and summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27. 

Affirmed.

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 7733** 

RANDOLPH ASHFORD , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,
v. ANGELA GORDON; KELVIN MYERS; KISHA LINNEN; KELVIN WILLIAMS; GEORGE J. AMONITTI, et al sued in their individual capacities , Defendants

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Rock Hill
. Paige Jones Gossett , Magistrate Judge. ( 0:13

- cv - 01113

- JFA

- PJG )

Submitted : January 21, 2014 Decided: January 24, 2014

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Randolph Ashford, Appellant Pro Se. Lydia L. Magee, RICHARDSON, PLOWDEN & ROBINSON, PA, Myrtle Beach , South Carolina ; Eugene Matthews, C. Cliff Rollins, RICHARDSON, PLOWDEN & ROBINSON, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Randolph Ashford seeks to appeal from the magistrate judge’ s order denying , in pertinent p art, Ashford’s motions to (1) extend discovery, (2) appoint counsel, (3) issue subpoenas, and (4) schedule a physical and mental health evaluation
. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over fin al orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012 ), and certain interlocutory and collater al orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012 ); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541, 545

- 46 (1949). The order Ashford seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collater al order. See Reynaga v. Cammisa , 971 F.2d 414, 416

- 18 (9th Cir. 1992)
. Accordingly, we dismiss the ap peal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
The Honorable Richard H. Battey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for 1 the District of South Dakota. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-1804

___________ Jacob O. Berry, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from United States v. * District Court for the * District of South Dakota. Assembly of God, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: April 6, 1998 Filed: April 14, 1998

___________ Before BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circui t Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Jaco b O. Berry appeals the district court & s conclusion that it lacked subjec t 1 matter jurisdiction over an action Berry brought against the Assembly of God, General Co uncil. Based on the record and the parties & briefs, we conclude that the court & s de terminationwas correct and that an extended discussion is not warranted. Th e judgment is affirmed. See8th Cir. R. 47B.-2-

A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
# L_2006319EN.01005101.xml

| 18.11.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 319/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.11.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 319/51

---

Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EC) No 1412/2006 of 25 September 2006 concerning certain restrictive measures in respect of Lebanon

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 267 of 27 September 2006
  )

In the Annex, on page 6, the fax number in the following address has been changed:

for:

‘Fax: (49-89) 70 90 97 38 00’

read:

‘Fax: (49-69) 70 90 97 38 00’.

---
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-13-00492-CR

Dennis Rick Johnson

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 371st District Court

of Tarrant County (1330395D)

November 14, 2013

Per Curiam

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for 

want of jurisdiction.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

PER CURIAM
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE
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 Annual Report of Source Financial, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-K/A for the year
ended June 30, 2014, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Hugh Evans, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350), 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.



Dated: January 13, 2015



| |  | /s/  Hugh Evans                      
| |  | -------------------------------------
| |  | Hugh Evans                           
| |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
| |  | (principal executive officer)        



A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 53 (Monday, March 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16112-16113]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6661]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]


 Eugene Science, Inc., Order of Suspension of Trading

 March 15, 2012.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
Eugene Science, Inc. because it has not filed any periodic reports 
since the period ended June 30, 2008.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the 
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the 
securities of the above-listed company. Therefore, it is ordered, 
pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that 
trading in the securities of the above-listed company is suspended for 
the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on March 15, 2012, through 11:59 p.m. EDT 
on March 28, 2012.


[[Page 16113]]


    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-6661 Filed 3-15-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-2048

ERIC NTORE, 

 Petitioner, 

 v. 

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, 

 Respondent. 

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals.

Submitted: May 21, 2009 Decided: June 18, 2009 

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

David C. Bennion, NATIONALITIES SERVICE CENTER, Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania, for Petitioner. Michael F. Hertz, Acting 

Assistant Attorney General, William C. Peachey, Assistant 

Director, Mona Maria Yousif, Office of Immigration Litigation, 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for 

Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

 Eric Ntore, a native and citizen of Burundi, petitions 

for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals 

dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of his 

requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection 

under the Convention Against Torture. 

 Before this court, Ntore challenges the determination 

that he failed to establish his eligibility for asylum. To 

obtain reversal of a determination denying eligibility for 

relief, an alien “must show that the evidence he presented was 

so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find 

the requisite fear of persecution.” INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 

U.S. 478, 483-84 (1992). We have reviewed the evidence of 

record and conclude that Ntore fails to show that the evidence 

compels a contrary result. Accordingly, we cannot grant the 

relief that he seeks. 

 Additionally, we uphold the denial of Ntore’s request 

for withholding of removal. “Because the burden of proof for 

withholding of removal is higher than for asylum--even though 

the facts that must be proved are the same--an applicant who is 

ineligible for asylum is necessarily ineligible for withholding 

of removal under [8 U.S.C.] § 1231(b)(3).” Camara v. Ashcroft, 

378 F.3d 361, 367 (4th Cir. 2004). Because Ntore failed to show 

2 
3 

that he is eligible for asylum, he cannot meet the higher 

standard for withholding of removal. 

 We also find that substantial evidence supports the 

finding that Ntore failed to meet the standard for relief under 

the Convention Against Torture. To obtain such relief, an 

applicant must establish that “it is more likely than not that 

he or she would be tortured if removed to the proposed country 

of removal.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2) (2009). We find that 

Ntore failed to make the requisite showing before the 

immigration court. 

 Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. Given 

this disposition, we deny the pending motion for stay of removal 

as moot. 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. 

PETITION DENIED
#### Frank Michael REESE, a/k/a Arthur Ray Larkin, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 87-2078.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 20, 1988.

Frank Michael Reese, a/k/a Arthur Ray Larkin, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED without prejudice to appellant’s right to file a sworn motion for post conviction relief in the circuit court within thirty days of this Court’s opinion.

ANSTEAD, WALDEN and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.
#### Charles David HARRISON and Vicky Euleen Harrison, his wife, Appellants, v. HYSTER COMPANY, a Nevada corporation, Appellee.

No. 86-1677.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 13, 1987.

*101Philip 0. Allen and James A. Yancey of DeVane, Munson, Allen & Langston, Lake-land, for appellants.

Philip D. Parrish of Fowler, White, Gil-len, Boggs, Villareal & Banker, P.A., Tampa, for appellee.

CAMPBELL, Judge.

We are presented once again with the question of whether the legislature’s 1986 amendment repealing the twelve-year statute of repose that is contained in section 95.031(2), Florida Statutes (1985), should be applied retroactively to revive appellants’ products liability claim filed on December 3, 1985. This court ruled in *Small v. Niagara Machine & Tool Works,*502 So.2d 943 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), that the amendment did not have retroactive application. On the authority of that opinion, we affirm the final summary judgment of the trial court in favor of appellee.

SCHEB, A.C.J., and HALL, J., concur.
#### STATE ex rel. Joseph Jimmy CARTER v. Warden Frank BLACKBURN, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 86-KH-2503.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 25, 1987.

In re Carter, Joseph Jimmy; applying for writ of certiorari, habeas corpus and mandamus; Parish of St. Mary, 16th Judicial District Court, Div. “D”, Nos. 58081,14023.

Denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2404 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2404

  To extend the temporary reduction of duty on acrylic or modacrylic 
                             filament tow.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

  Mrs. Hagan introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To extend the temporary reduction of duty on acrylic or modacrylic 
                             filament tow.

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

SECTION 1. ACRYLIC OR MODACRYLIC FILAMENT TOW.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.10.21 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to acrylic or modacrylic 
filament tow) is amended by striking ``12/31/2009'' and inserting ``12/
31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```