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

<ARTICLE>                      5
<CIK>                          0000725262
<NAME>                         DYCO OIL AND GAS PROGRAM 1984-2

<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                   DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                             31,242
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                      39,152
<ALLOWANCES>                            0
<INVENTORY>                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   70,394
<PP&E>                         23,980,207
<DEPRECIATION>                 23,654,297
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    419,623
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               5,860
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                                0
<OTHER-SE>                        403,867
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      419,623
<SALES>                           229,265
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  230,098
<CGS>                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     279,657
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   (49,559)
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               (49,559)
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                      (49,559)
<EPS-BASIC>                         (9.44)
<EPS-DILUTED>                           0



</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-6397

ROBERT LOUIS GARRETT, JR., a/k/a Chubby, a/k/a Chubb, a/k/a Tru, a/k/a 

Kweli, a/k/a Justice,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

NP AMY ENLOE; NURSE LINDSEY HARRIS; NURSE KATHERINE W. 

BURGESS; UNKNOWN SCDC MEDICAL ADMINISTRATOR AT SCDC 

HEADQUARTERS; LLD B. JACOBS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock 

Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (0:19-cv-01953-CMC)

Submitted: September 8, 2022 Decided: September 12, 2022

Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Louis Garrett, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. David Allan DeMasters, DAVIDSON, WREN 

& DEMASTERS, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-6397 Doc: 36 Filed: 09/12/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Louis Garrett, Jr., a South Carolina prisoner, seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without 

prejudice Garrett’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action for failure to prosecute. The district 

court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The 

magistrate judge recommended dismissal for failure to prosecute because Garrett had not 

responded to Defendants’ summary judgment motion—despite being granted two 

extensions for doing so—and advised Garrett that failure to file timely, specific objections 

to the recommendation would waive appellate review of a district court order based on the 

recommendation. Garrett filed no objections. 

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is 

necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the 

parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Martin v. Duffy, 858 

F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 846-47 (4th Cir. 1985); see 

also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154-55 (1985). Garrett has waived appellate review by 

failing to file objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation after receiving proper 

notice. Accordingly, we affirm. 

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

USCA4 Appeal: 21-6397 Doc: 36 Filed: 09/12/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
Exhibit 23.2

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (File No. 333-60975) and Form S-8 (File
Nos. 2-91950, 2-93578, 33-18278, 33-29014, 33-39215, 333-47268, 33-56420, 33-53303,
333-51073, 333-93803, 333-93805 and 333-102321) of Mandalay Resort Group of our report dated February 28, 2003, except for Note 7, as to
which the date is April 11, 2003, relating to the financial statements of Victoria Partners as of and for the year ended December 31, 2002 appearing in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K of Mandalay Resort Group for the year ended January 31, 2003.

DELOITTE &
TOUCHE LLP

Las
Vegas, Nevada
April 24, 2003

---

QuickLinks
1

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00557-CR

Carl Edward Danzey

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 396th District Court

of Tarrant County (1218702D)

February 28, 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
2

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00557-CR

CARL EDWARD DANZEY APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 396TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

In February 2011, Appellant Carl Edward Danzey pleaded guilty pursuant 

to a plea bargain to assault–family violence with a previous conviction. The trial 

court sentenced Danzey to three years’ confinement but suspended imposition of 

the sentence and placed him on community supervision for three years. On 

September 26, 2012, the trial court supplemented Danzey’s conditions of 

community supervision by requiring him to “serve a term of confinement and 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

treatment in a State of Texas Contracted Intermediate Sanction Facility for a 

period of not less than 45 days or more than 120 days.” Danzey subsequently

filed a notice of appeal challenging the order supplementing his conditions of 

community supervision.

On December 3, 2012, we notified Danzey of our concern that we lack 

jurisdiction over this appeal because the trial court had not entered any 

appealable orders. We informed Danzey that the appeal would be dismissed for 

want of jurisdiction unless he or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed 

with the court, on or before December 13, 2012, a response showing grounds for 

continuing the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.3. We have received no 

response.

This court does not have jurisdiction to consider an appeal from an order 

altering or modifying the conditions of community supervision. See Davis v. 

State, 195 S.W.3d 708, 710 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (“There is no legislative 

authority for entertaining a direct appeal from an order modifying the conditions 

of community supervision.”); Basaldua v. State, 558 S.W.2d 2, 5 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1977); Roberts v. State, No. 04-11-00514-CR, 2011 WL 2150762, at *1–2 (Tex. 

App.—San Antonio May 25, 2011, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for 

publication); Barba v. State, No. 07-01-0233-CR, 2001 WL 617502, at *1 (Tex. 

App.—Amarillo June 6, 2001, no pet.) (not designated for publication.). 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
3

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MEIER, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and GABRIEL, J.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: February 28, 2013
##### 



Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Tim Burroughs, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of TBX Resources, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with
respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the
periods presented in this quarterly report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 13a-14
and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:  a)
    
    designed such disclosure
controls and procedures
to ensure that material
information relating to
the registrant, including
its consolidating
subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others
within those entities,
particularly during the
period in which this
quarterly report was
prepared;b)
    
    evaluated the
effectiveness of the
registrants disclosure
controls and procedures
as of the end of the
period covered by this
quarterly report (the
Evaluation Date); andc)
    
    presented in this
quarterly report our
conclusions about the
effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and
procedures based on the
required evaluation as of
the Evaluation Date;  5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):  a)
    
    all significant
deficiencies in the
design or operation of
internal controls which
could adversely affect
the registrants ability
to record, process,
summarize and report
financial data and have
identified for the
registrants auditors any
material weaknesses in
internal controls; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not
material, that involves
management or other
employees who have a
significant role in the
registrants internal
controls; and  6.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly report
whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors
that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most
recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses. Dated this 15th day of July 2005 /s/ Tim BurroughsTim Burroughs, PresidentPrincipal Executive and Financial Officer
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on November 16, 2023, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Open Grid Alliance, Inc. (“OGA”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing                           ( print page 8247)                        changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, CommScope, Inc., Hickory, NC, has withdrawn as a party to this venture.                

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and OGA intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On March 31, 2022, OGA filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on May 12, 2022 (87 FR 29180).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on August 30, 2023. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on December 15, 2023 (88 FR 86930).                

Suzanne Morris,

Deputy Director Civil Enforcement Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2024-02261 Filed 2-5-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE>    5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-END>                                SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                                0
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       233
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                           6
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    239
<PP&E>                                              184
<DEPRECIATION>                                      274
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      698
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             1,472
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                         31,721
<OTHER-SE>                                            3
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        698
<SALES>                                             256
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    256
<CGS>                                                91
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       310
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     (9)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   (7)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (160)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (160)
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (160)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (0.01)



</TABLE>
DENIED and Opinion Filed August 27, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-21-00728-CV

IN RE AMY HAGEN, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 469th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 469-54042-2016

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Osborne, Pedersen, III, and Goldstein

Opinion by Justice Pedersen, III

Relator Amy Hagen has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking relief 

from the trial court’s August 18, 2021 order holding her in contempt and committing 

her to the county jail for twelve days. We deny relief. 

Relator must file with the petition a sufficient record to establish the right to 

relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Rule 

52.7(a)(2) requires the relator to file with the petition “a properly authenticated 

transcript of any relevant testimony from any underlying proceeding, including any 

exhibits offered into evidence, or a statement that no testimony was adduced in 

connection with the matter complained.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a)(2).
–2–

Relator’s petition and the trial court’s order indicate that before holding relator 

in contempt, the trial court conducted a hearing on Movant’s Second Amended 

Motion on Enforcement of Possession or Access and Counseling Orders. The 

petition indicates the hearing began on August 17, 2021 and concluded on August 

18, 2021. The trial court’s contempt order states “[t]he record of testimony was duly 

reported by the court reporter for the 469th District Court.”

Relator’s petition is not accompanied by a reporter’s record of the evidentiary 

hearing held in this matter. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a)(2). Without a reporter’s 

record from the contempt hearing, we cannot conclude relator has filed a sufficient 

record to obtain habeas relief. See id.; In re Norvell, 610 S.W.3d 598, 599–600 (Tex. 

App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (dismissing 

mandamus proceeding for failure to file transcript of evidentiary hearing); see also 

In re Butler, 270 S.W.3d 757, 759 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, orig. proceeding)

(denying mandamus relief for failure to meet rule 52 procedural requirements); In 

re Daniels, No. 05-20-00501-CV, 2020 WL 2715406, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Dallas 

May 26, 2020, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (denying habeas and mandamus relief 

for, among other deficiencies, failure to file reporter’s record of contempt hearing or 

statement that no testimony was taken).
–3–

We deny relator’s petition for writ of habeas corpus without prejudice to filing 

for further relief with a proper record.

210728f.p05

/Bill Pedersen, III//

BILL PEDERSEN, III

JUSTICE
<PAGE>


                                                                    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 Quarterly Report of uWink, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB/A for the quarter ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Nolan K. Bushnell,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to my knowledge:

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

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


Date: November 29, 2006                                 /s/ PETER F. WILKNISS
                                                        ------------------------
                                                        Peter F. Wilkniss
                                                        Chief Financial Officer
                                                        Chief Accounting Officer
#### Mary Lee DAVIS et al., Appellants, v. Roger C. HILL, Appellee.

No. 14145.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Oct. 16, 1963.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 13,1963.

Sidney P. Chandler, Corpus Christi, for appellants.

Bruce Waitz, V. H. McFarland, San Antonio, for appellee.

*918POPE, Justice.

This is a venue case under Section 5, Article 1995, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.Stats. Roger C. Hill sued Mary Lee Davis Chandler, individually and as executrix of the estate of Floyd R. Purvis. Mrs. Chandler’s husband is joined pro forma. Plaintiff, Hill, alleged a written equipment lease contract by a partnership composed of Floyd Purvis and Mary Lee Davis Chandler. Mrs. Chandler filed her plea of privilege and in it denied the partnership under oath. She filed no plea as executrix. Upon the hearing, plaintiff, Hill, introduced the written contract and rested. The order must be reversed, because plaintiff did not overcome the denial of partnership.

Purvis executed the equipment lease contract with Roger C. Hill in these words, “Floyd R. (Pat) Purvis & Mary Lee Davis (feme sole) dba, X-Pert Secretarial Service, Lessee, By Floyd R. Purvis, Partner.” For the issue of partnership to arise on a venue hearing, the defendant must deny partnership under oath in the plea of privilege. Moore v. James, Tex.Civ.App., 242 S.W.2d 958. If this is done, the plaintiff must then connect the one so denying partnership with the partnership obligation. Goldfarb v. Glazer’s Wholesale Drug Co., Tex.Civ.App., 274 S.W.2d 460; Clark, Venue in Civil Actions, p. 45. There was no effort to do this.

Plaintiff Hill’s only contention on this lack of proof of partnership is that it was not specifically denied under oath. Defendant Mary Lee Davis Chandler pleaded under oath: “These defendants deny that X-PERT SECRETARIAL SERVICE CO. was a general partnership between FLOYD R. PURVIS, deceased and MARY LEE CHANDLER on the dates alleged in the Plaintiff’s First Amended Original Petition, * * * and the Defendants deny that they were ever partners with FLOYD R. PURVIS, deceased, doing business as X-PERT SECRETARIAL SERVICE CO.” This was specific enough. *44*Tex. Jur.2d, Partnership, § 115.

The order is reversed and remanded with instructions that the cause against Mary Lee Davis Chandler, joined by her husband, Sidney P. Chandler, be severed and transferred to Nueces County, pursuant to the provisions of Rule 89, T.R.C.P.
EXHIBIT 99.1

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

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States
  Code), each of the undersigned officers of Surge Technologies Corp., a Nevada
  corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify that:

|1. | The Company's Amended Quarterly Report
        on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended December 31, 2002 (the "Form 10-QSB")
        fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
        Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 
|2. | Information contained in the Form 10-QSB
        fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
        results of operations of the Company.                                                                                           

|Dated: | March 14, 2003 | By: | /s/   Gordon McPhedran                         
|------ | -------------- | --- | -----------------------------------------------
|       |                |     | Gordon McPhedran, Chief Executive
      Officer
|       |                |     |                                                
|Dated: | March 14, 2003 | By: | /s/    Thom Eggerston                          
|       |                |     | Thom Eggerston, Chief Financial
      Officer  

---