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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from The
Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company's Consolidated Financial
Statements 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>                         DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                              0
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     702
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (70)
<INVENTORY>                                       205
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                1,197
<PP&E>                                         23,895
<DEPRECIATION>                                  4,743
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 21,199
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           2,089
<BONDS>                                         2,750
<COMMON>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                      7,023
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   21,199
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                8,409
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   6,643
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                281
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 1,490
<INCOME-TAX>                                      561
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               929
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                      929
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0



</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-21069 Summary Calendar

HENRY LEE CURTIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE; WAYNE SCOTT; UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MEDICAL BRANCH HOSPITAL; HARTMAN, DR.; COUGHIN, DR.; LALLATTRANS, DR.; DAVID LE; JESSE FRANKLIN; ESTELLE UNIT; TEXAS COMMISSION FOR THE BLIND, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-99-CV-3629

- - - - - - - - - - May 29, 2001 Before DAVIS, JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Henry Lee Curtis, a Texas prisoner (# 555628), appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii) and following a hearing pursuant to Spears v. McCotter , 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985). Curtis has failed to challenge the magistrate judge’s conclusion that any claims concerning the period prior toNo. 00-21069 -2- September 30, 1997–-two years before he submitted his complaint for mailing–-were barred by the applicable two-year Texas statute of limitations for personal injury. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner , 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987); Owens v. Okure , 488 U.S. 235, 251 (1989); T EX . C IV . P RAC . & R EM . C ODE A NN . § 16.003(a) (West 1999). As for his claims concerning the period after September 30, 1997, Curtis has failed to show that the district court abused its discretion in concluding that those claims were frivolous. Berry v. Brady , 192 F.3d 504, 507 (5th Cir. 1999). Although Curtis has apparently become blind since entering the Texas prison system, he has failed to set forth allegations suggesting that any of the named defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs during the relevant period. See Estelle v. Gamble , 429 U.S. 97, 104-06 (1976). The district court did not clearly abuse its discretion in failing to appoint Curtis an attorney. See Cupit v. Jones , 835 F.2d 82, 86 (5th Cir. 1987). The district court’s dismissal of Curtis’ complaint counts as one strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba
v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996). We caution Curtis that once he accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit
      23.1**





**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**





We
      hereby
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
      Forms S-3 (No. 333-127095, No. 333-125602, No. 333-122752, No. 333-33174, No.
      333-34822 and No. 333-89973) and Forms S-8 (No. 333-121041, No. 333-94603 and
      No. 333-82541) of MSGI Security Solutions, Inc. and subsidiaries, of our report
      dated October 15, 2007, relating to the consolidated financial statements as
      of
      June 30, 2007 and 2006 and for the fiscal years then ended, which is included
      in
      this Form 10-KSB/A filing, which report expresses an unqualified opinion and
      includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the ability of MSGI Security
      Solutions, Inc. to continue as a going concern.






/s/
      Amper, Politziner & Mattia, P.C.




October
      29, 2007


Edison,
      New Jersey ****
EXHIBIT 10.4 OPTION AGREEMENT


                                OPTION AGREEMENT

     THIS OPTION AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of February 21, 2002 by
and between Logistics Management Resources, Inc. ("Buyer"), and Midwest Merger
Management LLC ("Seller"). Seller hereby grants Buyer the right and option to
purchase 100 shares of Class A common stock of Interstate University, Inc. for
$1.00 per share upon the complete satisfaction of all of Buyer's obligations to
Seller under the Stock Purchase Agreement between them dated the date hereof and
the related Promissory Note in the original principal amount of $200,000.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed and delivered this
Agreement as of the date first above written.


LOGISTICS MANAGEMENT RESOURCES, INC.


BY:    /s/ Danny Pixler
       ----------------
TITLE: Danny Pixler, President


MIDWEST MERGER MANAGEMENT LLC


BY:    /s/ Michele Brown
       -----------------
TITLE: Michele Brown, Secretary
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 of MSGI Security Solutions, Inc. (the
"Company")as amended on Form 10-K/A for the year ended June 30, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, J. Jeremy Barbera, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive 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 result of operations of the Company.

Dated: October 28, 2005
                                       By: /s/ J. Jeremy Barbera
                                          -----------------------------
                                          J. Jeremy Barbera Chairman of the
                                          Board, Chief Executive Officer
                                          (Principal Executive Officer)

This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-K pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required
by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form with the electronic version 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.


                                       93
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed July 

11, 2023.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-23-00043-CV

IN RE ROBYN JANE ARELOLO RUSSELL, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

County Court at Law No. 3

Brazoria County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. PR41920

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On January 25, 2023, relator Robyn Jane Arelolo Russell filed a petition for 

writ of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. 

R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to compel the Honorable Jeremy 

Warren, presiding judge of the County Court at Law No. 3 of Brazoria County, to 

vacate his January 12, 2023 order granting real party interest’s amended motion to 
2

enforce Health and Safety Code Section 711.002. See Tex. Health & Safety Code 

§ 711.002. 

Relator has not established that she is entitled to mandamus relief. 

Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. We lift our January 

27, 2023 stay.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Bourliot and Wilson.
U.S. Deportment 

o f Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

FEB 0 7 2017 

Capt. Terry L. MeV enes 

Director, System Safety & Regulatory Affairs 

The Boeing Company 

P.O. Box 3707, MC 09-76 

Seattle, W A 98 124-2207 

Dear Captain MeV encs: 

Transport Airplane Directorate 

1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. 

Renton. Washington 98057-3356 

We have received your letter no. B-H020-REG- 16-TLM-61, dated September 16, 201 6, 

commenting, on behalf of The Boeing Company, on Special Conditions No. 25-627-SC, 

regarding an enhanced flight vision system (EFVS) in Boeing 767-300£7 airplanes operated 

by FedEx Express Corporation. 

Your comment is correct that, at the highest level, the intent of the requirement is to prevent 

any impairment of pilot-task performance and safety. In the case ofEFVS, which is used 

particularly during the time-critical phases of fl ight, and when the need to immediately 

remove the vision-system image is most critical, the need for the pilot, who is flying the 

airplane, to remove hands from the primary flight controls and thrust control, could 

potentially impair the pilot's task perfonnance and safety. The FAA believes it is imperative 

to make this requirement very clear to the airplane-certification applicant. This requirement 

consistently has been part of certification requirements for EFVS, and the display of visionsystem imagery on head-up displays, for more than a decade. 

Furthermore, most recently, the FAA completed and issued an amendment to Title 14, Code 

of Federal Regulations 25.773, which eliminates the future need for such special conditions. 

The FAA response to several public comments on this topic for that rulemaking is located in 

in the final rule titled, "Revisions to Operational Requirements for the Use of Enhanced 

Flight Vision Systems (EFVS) and to Pilot Compartment View Requirements for Vision 

Systems" (81 FR 90 126). 
The relevant requirement in this recent amendment to§ 25.773(e)(3) states, "The vision 

system must provide a means to allow the pilot using the display to immedi ately deactivate 

and reactivate the vision system imagery, on demand, without removing the pilot's hands 

from the primary flight controls or thrust controls." The FAA makes no changes to Special 

Conditions No. 25-627-SC as issued. 

Sincerely, 

Jeff Meyers 

Acting Manager, Airplane and Flight Crew Interface 

Transport Airp lane Directorate 

Aircraft Certification Service 

2
<PAGE>


                                                                    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

         This Certification is intended to accompany the Quarterly Report of
Finlay Enterprises, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended
August 2, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), and is given solely for the purpose of satisfying the
requirements of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. The undersigned hereby certifies 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.




Date: September 17, 2003

                                              /s/ Bruce E. Zurlnick
                                             ----------------------------------
                                              Bruce E. Zurlnick
                                              Senior Vice President, Treasurer
                                              and Chief Financial Officer












A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, has been
provided to Finlay Enterprises, Inc. and will be retained by Finlay Enterprises,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

_______________________________________

 ) 

FLORIDA INDEPENDENT COLLEGES )

AND UNIVERSITIES RISK )

MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION, INC. )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. )

 ) Civil No. 09-1930 (RCL)

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and )

THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, )

 )

Defendants. )

_______________________________________)

ORDER

Before the Court are the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment [16] [17]. For the 

reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby

ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED; and it is 

further

ORDERED that the defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. 

Judgment shall be entered for the defendants, dismissing this case with prejudice.

SO ORDERED.

Signed by Royce C. Lamberth, Chief Judge, on March 22, 2012.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BYRON F. ESPANA-OCHOA and

WILLIAN Y. ESPANA-OCHOA, AKA

William Y. Espana-Ochoa,

 Petitioners,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 10-73844

Agency Nos. A095-308-787

A097-873-061

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 7, 2015** 

Before: FISHER, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Byron F. Espana-Ochoa and Willian Y. Espana-Ochoa, natives and citizens

of Guatemala, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”)

order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying

FILED

APR 16 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * 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).
their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the

Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under

8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. 

Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny in part 

and grant in part the petition for review, and we remand.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because

petitioners failed to show it is more likely than not they would be tortured by the

Guatemalan government, or with its consent or acquiescence. See Silaya v.

Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008). Thus, petitioners’ CAT claims fail. 

In denying petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims, the

agency found petitioners failed to establish past persecution or a fear of future

persecution on account of a protected ground. When the IJ and BIA issued their

decisions in this case, they did not have the benefit of this court’s decisions in

Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder, 707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc), Cordoba v.

Holder, 726 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2013), and Pirir-Boc v. Holder, 750 F.3d 1077

(9th Cir. 2014), or the BIA’s decisions in Matter of M-E-V-G-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 227

(BIA 2014), and Matter of W-G-R-, 26 I. & N. Dec. 208 (BIA 2014). Thus, we

remand petitioners’ asylum and withholding of removal claims to determine the

2 10-73844
impact, if any, of these decisions. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002)

(per curiam).

Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; GRANTED in part;

REMANDED.

3 10-73844
(b) (4) (b) (4)
(b) 

(4)
(b) 

(4)

(b) 

(4)
#### The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Keith William PEEK and Michael Clyde Peek, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 79SA223.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

Dec. 10, 1979.

John Anderson, Dist. Atty., Eleventh Judicial District, Canon City, for plaintiff-appellant.

J. Gregory Walta, Colorado State Public Defender, Shelley Gilman, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for defendants-appellees.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the district attorney on a question of law, section 16-12-102, C.R.S.1973 (now in 1978 Repl. Vol. 8). The defendants were not brought to trial within the six months that followed their arraignment, and an interpretation of the speedy trial provisions, section 18-1 — 405(1), C.R.S. 1973 (now in 1978 Repl. Vol. 8) and Crim.P. 48 is the sole issue before us.

It is the burden of the prosecution and the trial court to comply with the requirements of both the speedy trial statute and rule. *People*v. *Colantonio,*196 Colo. 242, 583 P.2d 919 (1978); *People v. Lopez,*41 Colo.App. 206, 587 P.2d 792 (1978). The defendants did not waive their right to a speedy trial and their motion to dismiss was properly granted. *Harrington v. District Court,*192 Colo. 351, 559 P.2d 225 (1977); *Tasset v. Yeager,*195 Colo. 190, 576 P.2d 558 (1978).

Accordingly, we affirm.
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 Orsus Xelent  Technologies,
Inc.  (the  "Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed
with the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report). I, Tian
Jun, 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 result of
                  operations of the Company.


                                                      By: /s/ Tian Jun
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Tian Jun
                                                         Chief Financial Officer
                                                         August 15, 2005
Page 1 of 2

Case No: 4:08cv324

- RH/WCS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

FLORIDA WILDLIFE FEDERATION, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. CASE NO. 4:08cv324

- RH/WCS

LISA P. JACKSON, etc., et al.,

Defendants. ___________________________________/

ORDER EXTENDING THE DEADLINES FOR THE REMAINING RULES

The defendants United States Environmental Protection Agency and its

Administrator have moved to extend the deadlines for proposing and adopting the

remaining water

- quality criteria at issue in this case. The plaintiffs oppose the

motion. I find that the proposed extensions are reasonable. This order grants the

motion and also sets a deadline for adopting a rule setting criteria for streams

outside the South Florida region and setting downstream

- protection criteria for

unimpaired lakes; the earlier order did not set such a deadline. T he defendants

should take note: the effort that began in 1998 to establish numeric nutrient criteria Case 4:08-cv-00324-RH-WCS Document 395 Filed 05/30/12 Page 1 of 2Page 2 of 2

Case No: 4:08cv324

- RH/WCS for Florida waters must be completed. The defendants should not expect a further

extension.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The motion to extend deadlines, ECF No. 393, is GRANTED.

2. The deadline is extended to July 20, 2012, for the Administrator to

sign for publication a proposed r ule setting numeric nutrient criteria for coastal and

estuarine waters and flowing waters (“streams”) in the South Florida region. The

deadline for the Administrator to sign for publication a notice of final rulemaking

for these waters is extended to May 10, 2013.

3. The deadline is extended to November 30, 2012, for the Administrator

to sign for publication a proposed rule setting numeric nutrient criteria for streams

other than in the South Florida region and

— unless the Administrator has filed a

notice that she has d ecided not to propose or adopt such criteria

— setting

downstream

- protection criteria for unimpaired lakes. The deadline for the

Administrator to sign for publication a notice of final rulemaking for these matters

is set as August 31, 2013.

SO ORDERED on Ma y 30, 2012.

s/Robert L. Hinkle United States District Judge Case 4:08-cv-00324-RH-WCS Document 395 Filed 05/30/12 Page 2 of 2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0024

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

SLADE ALLEN CLAWSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including March 29, 2023, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

February 21 2023

02/21/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0024
*

The Honorable Anthony A. Alaimo, Senior U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Georgia,

sitting by designation. 

Margaret T. ALLEN, Yolanda F. Lamar, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

The ALABAMA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, Fob James, et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 97-6808.

United States Court of Appeals,

Eleventh Circuit.

June 30, 2000.

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama (No. 81-00697-CV-T-N);

Myron H. Thompson, Judge.

Before BIRCH and BARKETT, Circuit Judges, and ALAIMO, Senior District Judge.*

BY THE COURT:

The parties' "Motion to Withdraw Rehearing Petition...," construed as a joint motion to withdraw the

rehearing petition, to vacate this Court's published opinion, and to remand this matter to District Court to

resolve all issues relating to attorneys' fees, is GRANTED.