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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         791,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               22,884,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (659,000)
<INVENTORY>                                 17,575,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            43,318,000
<PP&E>                                       1,829,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,254,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              45,410,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       34,149,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     9,104,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,051,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                45,410,000
<SALES>                                     50,535,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            50,535,000
<CGS>                                       42,406,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               42,406,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                10,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,288,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (606,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (102,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (504,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              (504,000)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (504,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.18)
        

</TABLE>
##### 



PREMIUM STANDARD FARMS, INC.
NONQUALIFIED STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT
 THIS NONQUALIFIED STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT
 W I T N E S S E T H:
 WHEREAS
 WHEREAS
 WHEREAS
 WHEREAS
 NOW, THEREFORE
 Definitions
 Grant of Option
  Vesting of Options
 
 
 - 1 -




---



##### 



No Shareholder Rights
 Option Exercise Procedure
 Payment of the Exercise Price
      Restrictions on Transfer
 Adjustments
 Other Option Conditions
 Termination of Employment
 - 2 -




---



##### 



Change in Control
 Definitions
         Government Regulations, Registration and Listing of Stock
   - 3 -




---



##### 



Withholding Taxes
 No Other Rights Created
 Beneficiaries
  Binding Effect
 - 4 -




---



##### 



Notices
 Amendment
 Miscellaneous
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF
 PREMIUM STANDARD FARMS, INC.By:Name:Title:Optionee:Name:Address:
 - 5 -




---



##### 



EXHIBIT A
 NOTICE OF EXERCISE OF NONQUALIFIED STOCK OPTION
 
  
  
 
 OptioneeAddress:
 Print name in exact manner that it is
to appear on the stock certificate:Address to which certificate is to be sent,
if different from address above:Social Security Number
 A-1
EXHIBIT 2.9
 James Hardie  Form of 364-day Facility Agreement
  To: (Financier) #1#
 Date: 7 September 2007
 Extension Request  James Hardie  364-day Facility Agreement dated #2# June 2005 between James
Hardies International Finance BV (Borrower and
Obligors Agent) and #1# (Financier) (Facility
Agreement)
     [Names of person]being an
Authorised Officer of
    
    
    
    [Name of person]being an
Authorised Officer of
 James Hardie International Finance BV
##### 



Exhibit 99.4 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 In connection with the Annual Report on Form 40-F of Extendicare Inc. (the Company) for the
year ended December 31, 2004 (the Report) each of the undersigned officers of the Company certify
solely for purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. § 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 results of operations of the Company. /s/ Mel Rhinelander
Mel Rhinelander
President and Chief Executive Officer
March 28, 2005 /s/ Richard L. Bertrand
Richard L. Bertrand
Senior Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer
March 28, 2005 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Extendicare Inc. and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1
 
                              SILICON GAMING, INC.
                         (A DEVELOPMENT STAGE COMPANY)
 
                 STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE
               (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT SHARE AND PER SHARE AMOUNTS)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                      NINE MONTHS
                                                         ENDED      YEAR ENDED
                                                      DECEMBER 31, DECEMBER 31,
                                                          1995         1996
                                                      ------------ ------------
<S>                                                   <C>          <C>
Net loss.............................................   $(3,974)     $(13,634)
                                                        =======      ========
Weighted average common shares outstanding...........     2,065         6,433
Weighted average preferred shares outstanding, as if
 converted...........................................       679           396
Common shares, redeemable convertible preferred
 shares and options and warrants to purchase shares
 of common and redeemable convertible preferred
 shares granted (using the treasury stock method
 assuming an initial public offering price of $10.50)
 since July 31, 1995 included pursuant to Securities
 and Exchange Commission Rules.......................     5,548         3,192
                                                        -------      --------
Weighted average common and equivalent shares........     8,292        10,021
                                                        =======      ========
Net loss per share...................................   $ (0.48)     $  (1.36)
                                                        =======      ========
</TABLE>
### REVISED October 23, 2015

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 11244 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

SETH ALBERTO ACOSTA

,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:13

- CR

- 474

- 1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Seth Alberto Acosta has moved for

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California

, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United Sta tes v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).

Acosta h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the
relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s

* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED
October 2 2 , 2015

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-11244 Document: 00513244638 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/23/2015N o. 14

- 11244

2 assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.
Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is
excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 14-11244 Document: 00513244638 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/23/2015
Exhibit 99.1
 International Headquarters
One Enterprise Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
949.461.6000 FAX 949.461.6636
 Contact:
 VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS ANNOUNCES INCREASE IN SHARE REPURCHASE AUTHORIZATON
    About Valeant
  FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS:




---



#####
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 Annual Report of EP MedSystems, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), each of the undersigned,
in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

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

2.       The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of
         the Company


Date:  March 30, 2004                             /s/ Matthew C. Hill
                                                  -----------------------------
                                                  Matthew C. Hill
                                                  Chief Financial Officer
                                                  (Principal Financial Officer)
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-15-00270-CR

RICHARD BRENT REED,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 66th District Court

Hill County, Texas

Trial Court No. 37886

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Richard Reed pleaded not guilty to the offense of injury to an elderly person. The 

trial court deferred adjudication of guilt and placed Reed on community supervision for 

three years. On April 23, 2015, the State filed an Application to Proceed to Final 

Adjudication. The State then filed an amended Application to Proceed to Final 

Adjudication on May 7, 2015. Reed pleaded true to four of the eight allegations in the 

State’s Application to Proceed to Final Adjudication. The trial court found three 
Reed v. State Page 2

additional allegations to be true, convicted Reed of the offense of injury to an elderly 

person, and assessed punishment at 10 years confinement and a $500 fine. We affirm.

Reed’s appointed counsel filed an Anders brief asserting that she has diligently 

reviewed the appellate record and that, in her opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See Anders 

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel informed Reed of his right to submit a brief on 

his own behalf. On November 16, 2015, this Court received a letter from Reed indicating 

that he does not wish to pursue his appeal. Counsel's brief evidences a professional 

evaluation of the record for error, and we conclude that counsel performed the duties 

required of appointed counsel. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. at 744; High v. State, 573 

S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2008).

In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must, "after a full examination of all the 

proceedings, ... decide whether the case is wholly frivolous." See Anders v. California, 386 

U.S. at; accord Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An appeal 

is "wholly frivolous" or "without merit" when it "lacks any basis in law or fact." McCoy v. 

Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 439 n. 10 (1988). After a review of the entire record in this 

appeal, we determine the appeal to be wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 

824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

Counsel's request that she be allowed to withdraw from representation of Reed is 

granted. Additionally, counsel must send Reed a copy of our decision, notify Reed of his 

right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review, and send this Court a letter 
Reed v. State Page 3

certifying counsel's compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 48.4. TEX.R. APP.

P. 48.4; see also In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409 n.22. 

AL SCOGGINS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Affirmed; motion granted

Opinion delivered and filed December 3, 2015

Do not publish 

[CR25]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**EDWARD ROMAN GARZA,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 131 MAL 2016** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 17th day of May, 2016, the Petition for Allow ance of Appeal is** 

DENIED

**.**
S. 2197

One Hundred Fourth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-six

An Act

To extend the authorized period of stay within the United States for certain nurses.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZED PERIOD OF STAY FOR CERTAIN NURSES.

(a) ALIENS WHO PREVIOUSLY ENTERED THE UNITED STATES

PURSUANT TO AN H–1A VISA.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of

law, the authorized period of stay in the United States of

any nonimmigrant described in paragraph (2) is hereby

extended through September 30, 1997.

(2) NONIMMIGRANT DESCRIBED.—A nonimmigrant described

in this paragraph is a nonimmigrant—

(A) who entered the United States as a nonimmigrant

described in section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(a) of the Immigration

and Nationality Act;

(B) who was within the United States on or after

September 1, 1995, and who is within the United States

on the date of the enactment of this Act; and

(C) whose period of authorized stay has expired or

would expire before September 30, 1997 but for the provisions of this section.

(3) LIMITATIONS.—Nothing in this section may be construed

to extend the validity of any visa issued to a nonimmigrant

described in section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(a) of the Immigration and

Nationality Act or to authorize the re-entry of any person

outside the United States on the date of the enactment of

this Act.

(b) CHANGE OF EMPLOYMENT.—A nonimmigrant whose authorized period of stay is extended by operation of this section shall

not be eligible to change employers in accordance with section

214.2(h)(2)(i)(D) of title 8, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect

on the day before the date of the enactment of this Act).

(c) REGULATIONS.—Not later than 30 days after the date of

the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall issue regulations to carry out the provisions of this section.

(d) INTERIM TREATMENT.—A nonimmigrant whose authorized

period of stay is extended by operation of this section, and the

spouse and child of such nonimmigrant, shall be considered as

having continued to maintain lawful status as a nonimmigrant

through September 30, 1997.
S. 2197—2

SEC. 2. TECHNICAL CORRECTION.

Effective on September 30, 1996, subtitle A of title III of the

Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of

1996 is amended—

(1) in section 306(c)(1), by striking ‘‘to all final’’ and all

that follows through ‘‘Act and’’and inserting ‘‘as provided under

section 309, except that’’;

(2) in section 309(c)(1), by striking ‘‘as of’’ and inserting

‘‘before’’; and

(3) in section 309(c)(4), by striking ‘‘described in paragraph

(1)’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
#### Charles Ray BOOTH, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 32945.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 22, 1961.

Ralph O. Shepley, Houston, for appellant.

Frank Briscoe, Dist. Atty., Samuel H. 'Robertson, Jr., James E. Carroll, Asst. Dist. .Attys., Houston, and Leon B. Douglas, : State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

BELCHER, Commissioner.

Upon a trial before the court, a jury 'being waived, appellant was convicted of • carrying a pistol and his punishment assessed at a fine of $125.

Officer Beeman testified that he saw the .appellant, seated in the front seat of an automobile which was parked at the curb in front of a cafe, consuming alcoholic bev- • erages during prohibited hours in a public ■ place. The appellant was alone in the car, . and as Officers Beeman and Dugger ap- ■ proached the car, the appellant leaned over -and locked the glove compartment. The -officers “asked the defendant for the keys "to the automobile to unlock the glove box” .and when they unlocked it they found -therein a pistol containing five live, shells. While testifying, Officer Beeman identified the pistol they removed from the glove compartment of the car. The pistol was introduced in evidence without objection.

The appellant did not testify or offer any evidence in his behalf.

The facts and circumstances in evidence are sufficient to warrant appellant’s conviction for unlawfully carrying on or about his person a pistol, 2 Branch 2d 473, 474, Sec. 982; Hutspeth v. State, 158 Tex.Cr.R. 188, 254 S.W.2d 130.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.

WOODLEY, P. J., absent.
<PAGE>   1
                                  EXHIBIT 23.1

            Consent of Independent Accountants - KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


The Board of Directors
The Cerplex Group, Inc.:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-84946) on Form S-8 of The Cerplex Group, Inc. of our report dated
February 28, 1996, except the last paragraph of Note 9(a) and Note 9(b) and Note
18 which are as of April 15, 1996, relating to the consolidated balance sheets
of The Cerplex Group, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1995 and 1994,
and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders'
equity(deficit) and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period
ended December 31, 1995, and the related schedule, which report appears in the
December 31, 1995 annual report on Form 10-K of The Cerplex Group, Inc.



                                        /s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

Orange County, California
December 20, 1996
exhibit 32

 

**FORM OF SECTION 906 CERTIFICATIONS**

 

**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 amended Annual Report of CareDecision Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the year endedMarch 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert Cox, President/CEO, of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 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.

 

Date: September 6, 2005

 

/s/ Robert Cox                              

Robert Cox

President/CEO

 

 

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 within the electronic version of this written statement 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.

 

1

 

 

**FORM OF SECTION 906 CERTIFICATIONS**

 

**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 amended Annual report of CareDecision Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the year endedMarch 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Keith Berman, Treasurer/CFO, of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 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.

 

Date: September 6, 2005

 

/s/ Keith Berman                             

Keith Berman

Treasurer/CFO

 

 

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 within the electronic version of this written statement 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.
**EXHIBIT32**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Royal Phoenix (the"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2003, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the"Report"), I, Joseph Scott Wilson, President and Chief AccountingOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

-  The    Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the    Securities Exchange Act of 1934; andThe    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material    respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 

/s/            Joseph Scott            Wilson                        
Joseph            Scott Wilson

President            and Chief Accounting Officer

October            29, 2003
#### CSX TRANSPORTATION, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE CITY, MARYLAND, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 91-3506.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued Oct. 29, 1991.

Decided Nov. 25, 1992.

Richard K. Jacobsen, Sr. Sol.j Baltimore, Md., argued (Neal M. Janey, City Sol., Ambrose T. Hartman, Deputy City Sol., on brief), for defendant-appellant.

Jack Lawrence Benoit Gohn, Whiteford, Taylor & Preston, Baltimore, Md., argued (H. Russell Smouse, Thomas L. Samuel, Baltimore, Md., Richard C. Keene, Sr. Counsel, Law Dept., CSX Rail Transport, *357Jacksonville, Fla., on brief), for plaintiff-appellee.

Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HEANEY, Senior Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

We have considered the briefs and record in this case, as well as the oral argument of the attorneys, and are of opinion that we should affirm the judgment of the district court on its opinion.

We accordingly affirm the judgment of the district court on its opinion, 759 F.Supp. 281 (D.Md.1991).

*AFFIRMED.*