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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Brunner
Companies Income Properties, L.P. II 1996 Year-End 10-KSB and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such 10-KSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000847319
<NAME> BRUNNER COMPANIES INCOME PROPERTIES L.P. III
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             964
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      133
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          14,433
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,166
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  12,522
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                         11,895
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                         410
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    12,522
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,819
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,028
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,112
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (209)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.24)<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23


                 CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 33-43981, Form S-8 No. 33-63456, Form S-8 No. 33-82108 and Form S-8 No.
33-12611) pertaining to the Stock Option Plans of U.S. Bioscience, Inc., the
Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 33-77376) and related prospectus of U.S.
Bioscience, Inc. for the registration of 1,096,634 shares of its common stock
issuable upon exercise of certain warrants issued pursuant to the January 19,
1995 settlement of certain class-action suits and derivative litigations brought
against U.S. Bioscience, Inc. and the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No.
33-00077) and related prospectus of U.S. Bioscience, Inc. for the registration
of 8,142,578 shares of its common stock issuable in connection with the December
1995 private placement, of our report dated February 13, 1997 with respect to
the consolidated financial statements of U.S. Bioscience, Inc. included in this
Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1996.



                                                  /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
March 21, 1997
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


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of SmartPros Ltd. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Stanley
P. Wirtheim, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.

              A signed original of this written statement has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its
staff upon request.



/s/  STANLEY P. WIRTHEIM
-------------------------
     Stanley P. Wirtheim
   Chief Financial Officer

May 11, 2005
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6593

JUNE DALE NORRIS BLEDSOE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District

Judge. (CR-90-42-5)

Submitted: July 26, 2001 Decided: August 2, 2001

Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

June Dale Norris Bledsoe, Appellant Pro Se. Fenita Morris Shepard,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

June Dale Norris Bledsoe appeals the district court’s order

denying her petition for writ of error coram nobis. We have

reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. See United States v. Bledsoe, No. CR-90-42-5

(E.D.N.C. Mar. 6, 2001). 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
çD ST.

PRO’

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION IX

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 941 05-3901

MAR 07 2014

Richard W. Corey

Executive Officer

California Air Resources Board

Post Office Bo 2815

Sacramentofornia 95812

Dear . rey:

On January 21, 2014, CARE submitted revisions to the California State Implementation Plan

(SIP). We have reviewed materials submitted with the following nile and found that they fulfill the

completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V.

APCD/AQMD Rule # Rule Title

Imperial County 207 New and Modified Stationary Source Review

This addresses all revisions in this submittal. In the coming months we will review the complete

revisions for action pursuant to Clean Air Act section 110(k).

Questions regarding our completeness review should be directed to Robert Marinaro at (415)

972-3019.

cc: Brad Poiriez, Air Pollution Control Officer, Imperial County APCD

Michael Guzzetta, Manager. Rule Evaluation Section, CARB

Sincerely,

P,i,it’d on Revt/ed Pupci
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 1 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 1

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
                  relating to voluntary school prayer.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 19, 1999

Mr. Thurmond introduced the following joint resolution; which was read 
          twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
                  relating to voluntary school prayer.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is hereby proposed as 
an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution if 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the 
Congress:

                              ``Article--

    ``Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit 
individual or group prayer in public schools or other public 
institutions. No person shall be required by the United States or by 
any State to participate in prayer. Neither the United States nor any 
State shall compose the words of any prayer to be said in public 
schools.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### TELESAT CABLEVISION, INCORPORATED, Telesat Cablevision of South Florida, Inc., and Johnson Enterprises of Jacksonville, Inc., Appellants, v. NATIONAL CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, INC., d/b/a National Cable Corp., Appellee.

No. 88-1070.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 19, 1988.

Thomas R. Julin of Steel Hector & Davis, Miami, for appellants.

John D. Boykin of Boose Casey Ciklin Lubitz Martens McBane & O’Connell, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

*1072PER CURIAM.

We reverse and remand with direction to yacate the temporary injunction. *See Lingelbach’s Bavarian Restaurants, Inc. v. Del Bello,*467 So.2d 476, 479 (Fla.2d DCA), *petition for rev. denied,*476 So.2d 674 (Fla.1985); *Empire Pontiac Center, Inc. v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.,*322 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), and *Wilson v. Sandstrom,*317 So.2d 732, 736 (Fla.1975), *cert, denied,*423 U.S. 1053, 96 S.Ct. 782, 46 L.Ed.2d 642 (1976).

GLICKSTEIN, WALDEN and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-4944

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ANTWAIN LAMONT PAULINGS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr.,

Chief District Judge. (3:05-cr-00219)

Submitted: April 27, 2007 Decided: May 8, 2007

Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randolph M. Lee, LAW OFFICES OF RANDOLPH M. LEE, Charlotte, North

Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States

Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy E. Ray, Assistant United

States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Antwain Lamont Paulings appeals from his 115-month

sentence imposed after his guilty plea to possession of a firearm

by a convicted felon. Paulings acknowledges that the Sentencing

Guidelines range of 95-115 months was properly calculated, but

asserts that his sentence was unreasonable because the district

court gave excessive weight to the Sentencing Guidelines range.

Paulings further argues that this court’s presumptively reasonable

standard for sentences imposed within a properly calculated

Guidelines range conflicts with United States v. Booker, 543 U.S.

220 (2005). See United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 341 (4th

Cir. 2006) (“sentence within the proper advisory Guidelines range

is presumptively reasonable.”). We have carefully reviewed the

record and Paulings’ contentions and find that the sentence imposed

by the district court was reasonable. See United States v. Hughes,

401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir. 2005) (noting that sentencing courts

should determine the sentence range under the Guidelines, consider

other statutory factors, and impose a reasonable sentence within

the statutory maximum). Further, it is unnecessary to rely on

presumptive reasonableness because the district court sufficiently

articulated its reasons for imposing the sentence. See id.

Accordingly, we affirm Paulings’ sentence. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
- 3 -

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     I, Edwin C. Quattlebaum, Ph.D., Chief Executive Officer, President and
Co-Chairman of the Board of Directors of MetaMorphix, Inc. (the "Registrant"),
certify that to the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the quarterly
report on Form 10-QSB/A (Amendment No. 1) for the period ended June 30, 2005 of
the Registrant (the "Report"):

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

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

          By:                      /s/ EDWIN C. QUATTLEBAUM
             -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Edwin C. Quattlebaum, Ph.D.
              CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PRESIDENT AND CO-CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF
                                         DIRECTORS OF
                                       METAMORPHIX, INC.

Date:  December 15, 2006
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 the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of WNC California
Housing Tax Credits, L.P. (the "Partnership") for the year ended March 31, 2007
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), and pursuant to 18 U.S.C., section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Wilfred N. Cooper, Jr.,
President and Chief Executive Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc., general partner
of the Partnership, hereby certify 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 Partnership.




/S/WILFRED N. COOPER, JR.
-------------------------
Wilfred N. Cooper, Jr.
President and Chief Executive Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.

Date:  July 30, 2009
# Eiropas Savienības C 145/2020

| | ISSN 1977-0952 |
| --- | --- |
| Eiropas Savienības
  Oficiālais Vēstnesis | C 145 |
| | |
| Izdevums latviešu valodā | Informācija un paziņojumi | 63. gadagājums2020. gada 30. aprīlis |

ISSN 1977-0952

Eiropas Savienības

Oficiālais Vēstnesis

C 145

Izdevums latviešu valodā

Informācija un paziņojumi

63. gadagājums2020. gada 30. aprīlis

---

| Saturs | Lappuse |
| --- | --- |
| | |
| | |
| | Padome |
| 2020/C 145/01 | Padomes Lēmums (2020. gada 28. aprīlis), ar ko ieceļ amatā Zinātnes un tehnikas komitejas locekļus | 1 |

Saturs

Lappuse

Padome

2020/C 145/01

Padomes Lēmums (2020. gada 28. aprīlis), ar ko ieceļ amatā Zinātnes un tehnikas komitejas locekļus

1

---

| LV | |
| --- | --- |

LV

---

Padome

| 30.4.2020 | LV | Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis | C 145/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2020

LV

Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis

C 145/1

---

PADOMES LĒMUMS

(2020. gada 28. aprīlis),

ar ko ieceļ amatā Zinātnes un tehnikas komitejas locekļus

(2020/C 145/01)

EIROPAS SAVIENĪBAS PADOME,

ņemot vērā Eiropas Atomenerģijas kopienas dibināšanas līgumu un jo īpaši tā 134. panta 2. punktu,

pēc apspriešanās ar Eiropas Komisiju,

tā kā:

| (1) | Padome ar 2018. gada 6. novembra lēmumu (1) iecēla Zinātnes un tehnikas komitejas (“komiteja”) locekļus laikposmam no 2018. gada 6. novembra līdz 2023. gada 6. novembrim. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Padome ar 2018. gada 6. novembra lēmumu (1) iecēla Zinātnes un tehnikas komitejas (“komiteja”) locekļus laikposmam no 2018. gada 6. novembra līdz 2023. gada 6. novembrim.

| (2) | Sakarā ar Eugenijus UŠPURAS kunga nāvi ir atbrīvojusies komitejas locekļa amata vieta. Tāpēc būtu jāieceļ jauns loceklis uz atlikušo Eugenijus UŠPURAS kunga pilnvaru termiņu. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Sakarā ar Eugenijus UŠPURAS kunga nāvi ir atbrīvojusies komitejas locekļa amata vieta. Tāpēc būtu jāieceļ jauns loceklis uz atlikušo Eugenijus UŠPURAS kunga pilnvaru termiņu.

| (3) | Sakarā ar Grzegorz WROCHNA kunga atkāpšanos no amata ir atbrīvojusies komitejas locekļa amata vieta. Tāpēc būtu jāieceļ jauns loceklis uz atlikušo Grzegorz WROCHNA kunga pilnvaru termiņu, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Sakarā ar Grzegorz WROCHNA kunga atkāpšanos no amata ir atbrīvojusies komitejas locekļa amata vieta. Tāpēc būtu jāieceļ jauns loceklis uz atlikušo Grzegorz WROCHNA kunga pilnvaru termiņu,

IR PIEŅĒMUSI ŠO LĒMUMU.

1. pants

Ar šo Egidijus URBONAVIČIUS kungs un Józef SOBOLEWSKI kungs tiek iecelti par Zinātnes un tehnikas komitejas locekļiem līdz 2023. gada 6. novembrim.

2. pants

Šis lēmums stājas spēkā tā pieņemšanas dienā.

Briselē, 2020. gada 28. aprīlī

Padomes vārdā –

priekšsēdētājs

G. GRLIĆ RADMAN

---

(1)  Padomes Lēmums (2018. gada 6. novembris), ar ko ieceļ amatā Zinātnes un tehnikas komitejas locekļus (OV C 403, 9.11.2018., 2. lpp.).

1

---
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Principal Executive Officer

Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2007 (the Report) of North American Insurance Leaders, Inc. (the Registrant), as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, William R. de Jonge, President of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:

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

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



|                       |  |                              
|---------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Date: February 8, 2008 |  | /s/ William R. de Jonge      
|                       |  | President                    
|                       |  | (principal executive officer)
#### Fogle Unemployment Compensation Case.

*19Argued November 14, 1961.

Before Ervin, Wright, Woodside, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ. (Rhodes, P. J., absent).

*Daniel M. Berger,*with him *Berger & Berger,*for appellant.

*Sydney Reuben,*Assistant Attorney General, with him *David Stahl,*Attorney General, for Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, appellee.

December 14, 1961:

Opinion by

Ervin, J.,

In this unemployment compensation case the bureau, referee and board all concluded that the appellant voluntarily terminated his employment without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature and disqualified himself from receiving benefits under the provisions of §402(b)(1) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, 43 PS §802(b) (1).

Appellant’s last day of work was Friday, August 14, 1959. He went to Sandusky, Ohio, on the weekend and while there was arrested and imprisoned and later *20tried and convicted for contributing to tbe delinquency of a minor. On August 24, 1959 the employer was notified that appellant would not return to work. On August 28, 1959 the employer removed appellant from the payroll in accordance with company policy providing for such automatic action if an employe fails to report to work within five days. The appellant knew of the company policy and for this reason did not apply for reinstatement after his release from prison ten months later.

Appellant testified that during the first days after his arrest he was unable to notify his employer of his whereabouts. The board was not impressed by this excuse and neither are we. The board did not have to believe this testimony. Appellant’s conduct was tantamount to an abandonment of his employment relationship : *Flannick Unemployment Compensation Case,*168 Pa. Superior Ct. 606, 610, 82 A. 2d 671. See also *Michalsky Unemployment Compensation Case,*163 Pa. Superior Ct. 436, 62 A. 2d 113.

Furthermore, this appellant could have been refused employment because of his commission of a crime involving moral turpitude: *Dept. of L. & I. v. Unemployment Compensation Bd.,*148 Pa. Superior Ct. 246, 248, 24 A. 2d 667.

Decision affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6617

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RYAN OSHAY LEE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever, III,

Chief District Judge. (7:07-cr-00079-D-1)

Submitted: September 25, 2014 Decided: September 29, 2014

Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ryan Oshay Lee, Appellant Pro Se. Timothy Severo, Shailika K. 

Shah, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY;

Stephen Aubrey West, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, 

North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Ryan Oshay Lee appeals the district court’s order 

denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for reduction 

in his sentence based on Amendments 750 and 759 to the U.S. 

Sentencing Guidelines Manual. We affirm. 

The district court properly concluded that it lacked 

authority to grant a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2) 

because Lee’s Guidelines range was driven by his career offender 

designation and not the crack cocaine Guidelines provisions. 

See United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 187 (4th Cir. 2010). 

To the extent that Lee challenges the continued viability of 

that designation, such a claim is not properly pursued in a 

§ 3582(c)(2) motion. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817 

(2010) (explaining that § 3582(c)(2) does not authorize full 

resentencing, but permits sentence reduction only within narrow 

bounds established by the Sentencing Commission). 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 

See United States v. Lee, No. 7:07-cr-00079-D-1 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 

8, 2014). We deny Lee’s motion for the appointment of counsel. 

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.

AFFIRMED