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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THERMO
BIOANALYSIS CORPORATION'S ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER
28, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-28-1996
<CASH>                                          45,476
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,256
<ALLOWANCES>                                       991
<INVENTORY>                                     14,592
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                81,235
<PP&E>                                          12,129
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,582
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 122,997
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,485
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            98
<OTHER-SE>                                      51,218
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   122,997
<SALES>                                         71,649
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                71,649
<CGS>                                           37,807
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   37,807
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,798
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   210
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,873
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,464
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,900
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (436)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (436)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 368

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that installment

sales of certain farmers not be treated as a preference item for purposes

of the alternative minimum tax.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 7 (legislative day, JANUARY 30), 1995

Mr. DORGAN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide

that installment sales of certain farmers not be treated

as a preference item for purposes of the alternative minimum tax.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. MINIMUM TAX NOT TO APPLY TO FARMERS’

4 INSTALLMENT SALES.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The last sentence of paragraph

6 (6) of section 56(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986

7 (relating to treatment of installment sales in computing

8 alternative minimum taxable income) is amended to read
2

S 368 IS

1 as follows: ‘‘This paragraph shall not apply to any disposi2 tion described in section 453(l)(2)(A) (relating to farm

3 property) or with respect to which an election is in effect

4 under section 453(l)(2)(B) (relating to timeshares and

5 residential lots).’’

6 (b) EFFECTIVE DATES.—

7 (1) IN GENERAL.—The amendment made by

8 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning

9 after December 31, 1987.

10 (2) SPECIAL RULE FOR 1987.—In the case of

11 taxable years beginning in 1987, the last sentence of

12 section 56(a)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code of

13 1986 shall be applied by inserting ‘‘described in sec14 tion 453(l)(2)(A) or’’ after ‘‘disposition’’.

Æ
Petition for Exemption

14 CFR 91.9 (b) and 91,203 (a)

Don Bintz

Unmanned Systems, Inc.

2709 Cyrano Avenue

Henderson NV 89052

Contact:

Jane Bertone

Unmanned Systems, Inc.

jane.bertone@unmannedsystemsinc.com

(702) 885-6379

Summary. This petition seeks exemptions to 14 CFR 91.9 (b) (2), and 91.203 (a) and (b) because the 

aircraft in question is an unmanned aircraft (UA) and as such does not possess a cabin or a cockpit; 

neither does it carry a pilot, passengers, and crew. The aircraft will neither be capable of carrying a Flight 

Manual and Airworthiness Certificate, nor displaying the certificate at the cabin or cockpit entrance so it is 

available to passengers or crew.

Extent and Reason of relief. We request that the aircraft registration, airworthiness certificate, and aircraft 

flight manual be maintained at a location other than the aircraft, to be determined by the FAA Office of 

Rulemaking. 

Public Benefit. Public access to the relevant documentation will not be available on board the aircraft as 

it is unmanned. A more accessible location would be on the ground, for example the aircraft hangar.

Safety. The existing rule is designed to benefit the pilot, crew, and passengers. As there will be none, 

the exemption cannot adversely affect their safety.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 9, 2019

No. 04-18-00334-CV

Paulette BARIBEAU,

Appellant

v.

HILL COUNTRY PARTNERS, L.P.,

Appellee

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016-CI-08378

Honorable Michael E. Mery, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice 

Luz Elena D. Chapa. Justice 

Irene Rios, Justice 

On April 8, 2019, Appellant Paulette Baribeau filed a Motion to Abate Briefing Schedule 

pending Settlement Discussions pursuant to Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 38.6(d) and 

10.5(b). See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(d); 10.5(b). This case is currently set for submission on 

May 8, 2019. Although Appellant’s motion requests an abatement of the briefing schedule,

the procedural rules to which Appellant cites, and the extension to which Appellant refers, 

seem concerned with the extension of time related to Appellant’s Reply Brief.

Appellant is requested to clarify, no later than April 17, 2019, any relief that Appellant 

seeks beyond that of a motion for extension of time to file Appellant’s Reply Brief. See id. 

10.5(b).

It is so ORDERED on this 9th day of April, 2019.

PER CURIAM

 ATTESTED TO: ________________________

 KEITH E. HOTTLE,

 Clerk of Court
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 00-4437



# 
K YLE G. M ITCHELL ,

Defendant-Appellant. 

# 
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley.

David A. Faber, District Judge. (CR-99-162) Submitted: December 8, 2000 Decided: January 11, 2001 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL Mary Lou Newberger, Acting Federal Public Defender, Edward H.Weis, First Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, John L. File, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

OPINION PER CURIAM:Kyle G. Mitchell appeals his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and distribution of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 846 (West 2000). Finding no reversible error, we affirm.On appeal, Mitchell contends that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. ___, 120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000),requires that his conviction and sentence be vacated. Because Mitchell’s sentence of 135 months’ imprisonment and five years’ supervised release does not exceed the twenty-year statutory maximum term of imprisonment or unspecified maximum term of supervised release set out in 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(b)(1)(C) (West 1999) for the coreoffense without enhancement for drug quantity, we find that his sentence is permissible under Apprendi

. See United States v. Angle , 230 F.3d 113 (4th Cir. 2000); United States v. Aguayo-Delgado , 220 F.3d 926, 933 (8th Cir.), cert. denied , ___ U.S. ___, 2000 WL 1634209(U.S. Nov. 27, 2000) (No. 00-6746). Accordingly, we affirm Mitchell’s conviction and sentence. 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 2 U NITED S TATES v. M ITCHELL
1

Filed 7/29/21 Laroya v. Laroya CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

----

AMARJIT LAROYA,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

HUSSAN LAROYA,

Defendant and Appellant.

C091576

(Super. Ct. No. 19DV02501)

Hussan Laroya appeals from a domestic violence restraining order issued after 

trial to protect Amarjit Laroya. Hussan contends the trial court abused its discretion in 

issuing the order. In support of his contention, Hussan argues there was insufficient 

evidence he abused Amarjit. He also argues the trial court erred in allowing his adult 

sons to testify. As we explain below, despite being represented by counsel, Hussan has 

failed to preserve these claims on appeal. The claims are thus forfeited and we will 

affirm the trial court’s order.

In order to preserve a claim on appeal, the appellate brief must “[s]upport any 

reference to a matter in the record by a citation to the volume and page number of the 

record where the matter appears” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C)), it must also 

support each point by argument and, if possible, by citation to authority (Cal. Rules of 
2

Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B)). In his opening brief, Hussan identifies five separate issues 

on appeal; however, his purported analysis of those issues contain not a single citation to 

the record. It is not this court’s task to search the record for evidence that supports a 

party’s factual statements, and we will disregard statements not supported by proper 

citation. (In re Marriage of Tharp (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1295, 1310, fn. 3; Regents of 

the University of California v. Sheily (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 824, 826, fn. 1.)

Moreover, in the argument section of his opening brief, Hussan failed to support 

the issues he raised with citation to relevant legal authority or meaningful analysis. 

Instead, Hussan rests his claims solely on passing reference to statutes without 

explanation. An appellant who does not provide adequate legal authority and analysis to 

support a contention forfeits that contention. (Ewald v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC

(2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 947, 948; Nielsen v. Gibson (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 318, 324.) 

Accordingly, Hussan has forfeited his claims for this reason as well.

DISPOSITION

The orders of the trial court are affirmed. Appellant shall pay respondent’s costs 

of this appeal. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a).) 

 

HULL, Acting P. J.

We concur:

 

MAURO, J.

 

DUARTE, J.
FILED

October 12, 1998

Cecil W. Crowson

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

CITY OF SOUTH FULTON, TENNESSEE ) NOT FOR PUBLICATION

CITY OF BRADFORD, TENNESSEE; and )

WEAKLEY COUNTY, TENNESSEE, for )

the use and benefit of Weakley County )

Municipal Electric System, )

)

Plaintiff - Respondent, ) Certified Question of Law 

) from the United States

) Court of Appeals for the

v. ) Sixth Circuit. (No. 96-6201)

)

HICKMAN-FULTON COUNTIES RURAL )

ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE CORPORATION; )

WALLY BEYER, Administrator, Rural ) No. 01-S-01-9710-FD-00215

Electrification Administration, U.S. Department )

of Agriculture; CHARLES B. GILL, Governor, )

National Rural Utilities Cooperative Finance )

Corporation; NATIONAL BANK FOR )

COOPERATIVES, )

)

Defendants, (Trial Only) )

)

GIBSON ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP )

CORPORATION, )

)

Defendant - Petitioner. )

ORDER ON PETITION TO REHEAR

A petition for rehearing has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, Gibson

Electric Membership Corporation. After consideration of the same, the Court is of the

opinion that the petition should be and the same is hereby denied at the cost of the

petitioner.

PER CURIAM
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 2, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-60020

Summary Calendar

 

KATUNGU NGELEZA,

Petitioner,

versus

JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

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

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A75 352 600

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

Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Katunga Ngeleza, a native and citizen of the Democratic

Republic of Congo, formerly Zaire, appeals the Board of

Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming the order

denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal. 

She argues that the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) erred in determining

that filed a frivolous asylum application and lied under oath. 

She further argues that the IJ violated her due process rights by
No. 03-60020

-2-

allowing an incompetent interpretation of the proceedings, over

her objection.

The IJ’s determination that Ngeleza filed a frivolous asylum

application and lied under oath is supported by substantial

evidence. See Moin v. Ashcroft, 335 F.3d 415, 418 (5th Cir.

2003). Ngeleza has not provided this court with compelling

evidence warranting reversal of the IJ’s determination. Id.

Ngeleza’s due process argument is without merit. Our review

of the record reveals that Ngeleza did not object to the

testimony at issue. Moreover, she cannot demonstrate that she

was substantially prejudiced by the interpretation. Anwar v.

INS, 116 F.3d 140, 144 (5th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, her

petition for review is DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1997
<CASH>                                          11,434
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,801
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    233,562
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                17,652
<PP&E>                                          11,563 
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,817     
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 271,918
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           31,216
<BONDS>                                        100,000 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,500
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   271,918
<SALES>                                        207,869
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               212,415
<CGS>                                          171,665
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  208,354
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,061 
<INCOME-TAX>                                       539
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0 
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,522 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.23 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.23 
        


</TABLE>
### **Exhibit 99.2**

 

# **Co-Registrant (Commission File Number000-30761):**

 

**UbiquiTel Inc.**

**One West Elm StreetSuite 400Conshohocken, Pennsylvania 19428**

 

**Co-Registrant (Commission File Number333-39950):**

 

**UbiquiTel Operating Company**

**One West Elm StreetSuite 400Conshohocken, Pennsylvania 19428**

 

 

# **CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

 

In connectionwith the Quarterly Report of UbiquiTel Inc. and UbiquiTel Operating Company onForm 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, JamesJ. Volk, Chief Financial Officer of UbiquiTel Inc. and UbiquiTel OperatingCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

(2)  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of UbiquiTel Inc. and UbiquiTel Operating Company.

 
|   | UBIQUITEL  INC.              |
|--------|------------------------------|
|   |                         |
|   |                         |
|   | */s/ James J. Volk*          |   |
|   | James J.  Volk               |
|   | Chief  Financial Officer     |
|   |                         |
|   |                         |
|   | UBIQUITEL  OPERATING COMPANY |
|   |                         |
|   |                         |
|   | */s/ James J. Volk*          |   |
|   | James J.  Volk               |
|   | Chief  Financial Officer     |
|   |                         |
|   |                         |
|   | August 14,  2002             |

 

----
**Exhibit32.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVEOFFICER**

** **

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

** **

The undersigned, S. Bradford Antle, the ChiefExecutive Officer of SI International, Inc. (the “Company”), has executed thiscertification in connection with the filing with the Securities and ExchangeCommission of the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period endedJune 25, 2005 (the “Report”).  Theundersigned hereby certifies that:

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

(2)           the information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 
| October 28, 2005 |   | SI INTERNATIONAL, INC.                |
|------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|             |   |                                  |
|             |   |                                  |
|             |   | /s/ S. BRADFORD ANTLE                 |
|             |   | S. Bradford Antle                     |
|             |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

----

 

**Exhibit32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIALOFFICER**

** **

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

** **

The undersigned, Thomas E. Dunn, the Chief FinancialOfficer of SI International, Inc. (the “Company”), has executed thiscertification in connection with the filing with the Securities and ExchangeCommission of the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period endedJune 25, 2005 (the “Report”).  Theundersigned hereby certifies that:

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

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

 
| October 28, 2005 |   | SI INTERNATIONAL, INC.                |
|------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|             |   |                                  |
|             |   |                                  |
|             |   | /s/ THOMAS E. DUNN                    |
|             |   | Thomas E. Dunn                        |
|             |   | Executive Vice President,             |
|             |   | Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer |

 

----
PARK BANCORP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                                  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 Park Bancorp, Inc. ("the Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2004 ("the Report"), I, David A. Remijas,
President and 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:

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



                                          David A. Remijas
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer


                                          March 30, 2004
**EXHIBIT31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

 

I, Edileen Salicrup, Chief Financial Officer of ClearComm, L.P.,certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewed this annual report ofClearComm, L.P.;

 

2.               Based on my knowledge, this report doesnot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.               Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; and

 

4.               The company’s other certifyingofficer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

(a)         Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared; and

(b)         Evaluated theeffectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation.

 
| Date: November 4, 2003. |                     |
|-------------------------|--------------------------|
|                    | /s/  Edileen Salicrup    |   |
|                    | Edileen  Salicrup        |
|                    | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----