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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                          36,568
<SECURITIES>                                    27,627
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,094
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,224
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  68,332
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,038
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    68,332
<SALES>                                          1,849
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,849
<CGS>                                            1,206
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,206
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,973
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,761)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,761)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.31)


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

CertificationPursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63of Title 18 of the United States Code

 

I,  Edileen Salicrup, the Chief FinancialOfficer of ClearComm, L.P., certify that (i) the December 31, 2002 10-K Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in theDecember 31, 2002 10-K Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of ClearComm, L.P.

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

 

----
----

----

|   | (1) | the      Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 30,      2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as      applicable, 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. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                     |                      |                                                |
|------------------------------------------|---------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|                                     | APPLETON      PAPERS INC. |
|                                     |                      |                                                |
| Dated:  May 12,      2008 |                      |        /s/ Mark R. Richards                    |
|                                     | Name:                     | Mark      R. Richards                               |
|                                     | Title:                    | Chairman,      President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer |
Order entered December 29 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 14 - 00212 - CR No. 05 - 14 - 00213 - CR JOE POLANCO, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 401st Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . 401 - 81063 - 2011 , 401 - 80435 - 2012



### O RDER T he Court DENIES appellant’s December 2 1, 2015 pro se “corrected motion to reconsider appellant’s motion to stay mandate

. ” No further motions will be entertained regarding issuance of the mandate

. /s/ ROBERT M. FILLMORE JUSTICE
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. AP-75,892

EX PARTE KARL WAYNE THOMAS, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 31906 IN THE 33 DISTRICT COURT RD

FROM BURNET COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of aggravated assault

and sentenced to ten and a half years’ imprisonment. 

Applicant contends that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance because she failed to

timely file notice of appeal. We remanded this application to the trial court for findings of fact and

conclusions of law.

The trial court has determined that trial counsel failed to timely file notice of appeal. We find,
therefore, that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of-time appeal of the judgment

of conviction in Cause No. 31906 from the 33 Judicial District Court of Burnet County. Applicant rd

is ordered returned to that time at which he may give a written notice of appeal so that he may then,

with the aid of counsel, obtain a meaningful appeal. All time limits shall be calculated as if the

sentence had been imposed on the date on which the mandate of this Court issues. We hold that,

should Applicant desire to prosecute an appeal, he must take affirmative steps to file a written notice

of appeal in the trial court within 30 days after the mandate of this Court issues.

Delivered: April 9, 2008

Do Not Publish
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JANUARY 29, 2015

NO. 03-14-00132-CV

Donald L. Knepp and Andrea L. Knepp, Appellants

v.

K.R.A.K. Investments, LLC, Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF HAYS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES GOODWIN AND FIELD

DISMISSED ON APPELLANTS’ MOTION -- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on April 30, 2014. Appellants have

filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, and having considered the motion, the Court agrees that the 

motion should be granted. Therefore, the Court grants the motion and dismisses the appeal. The 

appellants shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
Order filed July 27, 2017. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-16-00864-CR

____________

BENJAMIN DEVORA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 180th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1474449

ORDER

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal 

is wholly frivolous and without merit. Appellant has made known to this Court his desire 

to review the record and file a pro se brief. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 

(1967); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Accordingly, on May 

23, 2017, we ordered that the record be provided to appellant. On June 26, 2017, the 

District Clerk of Harris County notified this court that appellant received the record on 

May 30, 2017.
On July 10, 2017, appellant filed a pro se motion for production of additional 

records, in which he seeks the transcripts of all pretrial conferences and hearings. The 

record filed with this court does not contain the requested items. It is unclear from our 

record whether a record was made of any pretrial conferences and hearings. Accordingly, 

we GRANT appellant’s motion, and issue the following order:

We order Gina Bench, the official court reporter for the 180th District Court, to 

certify to this court whether a transcript was made of any pretrial conferences or hearings. 

If any pretrial conferences or hearings were transcribed, the record of that conference or 

hearing, together with all exhibits, if any, shall be filed with the clerk of this court within 

30 days of the date of this order. In addition, in accordance with local procedure, the 

clerk of the court shall furnish a copy of the reporter’s record, or certification that no 

record of pretrial conferences or hearings was made, to appellant within 45 days of the 

date of this order and certify to this court the date on which delivery of the record to 

appellant is made. 

Appellant’s pro se brief shall be filed with this court within thirty days after 

receipt of a copy of the supplemental record or receipt of notice that no record was made.

PER CURIAM
* 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. 98-50853 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus RICARDO TORRES SANDOVAL, also known as Richard LNU, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. P-97-CR-157-1

- - - - - - - - - - August 25, 1999 Before KING, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and SMITH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Court-appointed counsel for Ricardo Torres Sandoval has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Sandoval has received a copy of counsel’s motion and brief, but has not filed a
response. As part of the plea agreement, Sandoval waived the right to appeal any aspect of his conviction and sentence. The waiver did not apply to ineffective assistance of counsel or prosecutorialNo. 98-50853 -2- misconduct of constitutional dimension of which Sandoval did not have knowledge at the time of sentencing. We have reviewed the record and find that Sandoval’s waiver of his right to appeal was informed and voluntary. United States v. Melancon , 972 F.2d 566, 567 (5th Cir. 1992). Thus, unless circumstances exist which implicate the two exceptions of the waiver-of-appeal provision, the waiver precludes any direct appeal. See id

. Court-appointed counsel suggests that this court may want to appoint substitute counsel for the purpose of reviewing the sentencing proceedings, in light of Sandoval’s assertion at sentencing that counsel was ineffective. To the extent that counsel suggests that there may exist a nonfrivolous ineffectiveness claim, the record has not been adequately developed for us to consider such a claim on direct appeal. See United States v. Scott , 159 F.3d 916, 924 (5th Cir. 1998). Thus, counsel’s request that substitute counsel be appointed is DENIED. Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous appellate issues. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
##### 



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 TBX Resources, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB
for the period ended February 28, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, Tim Burroughs, President, Chief Executive Officer and Principal
Executive and Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 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, as applicable; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods
indicated. Dated this 20th day of April 2005. By: /s/ Tim Burroughs, President
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-50152

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

IGNACIO LUNA GARCIA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 6:13-CR-155-1

Before JOLLY, WIENER, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ignacio Luna Garcia, federal prisoner # 53034-280, seeks leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the district court’s denial of his 

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion seeking modification of his sentence for 

possession with the intent to distribute methamphetamine and illegal reentry

based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. By moving to proceed 

IFP, Garcia is challenging the district court’s certification decision that his 

 

* 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

October 19, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-50152 Document: 00513725998 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/19/2016
No. 16-50152

2

appeal was not taken in good faith because it is frivolous. See Baugh v. Taylor, 

117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).

In this court, Garcia argues that the district court abused its discretion 

in denying his motion for a reduction of sentence. He contends that he is not 

a threat to public safety and asserts that a reduction of sentence should have 

been granted. We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s decision 

whether to reduce a sentence pursuant to § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Evans, 

587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2009).

In its order denying relief, the district court recognized that Garcia was 

eligible for a sentence reduction. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S. 817, 

826-27 (2010). However, the district court denied Garcia’s motion as a matter 

of discretion, referring specifically to the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors 

and Garcia’s extensive criminal history. Garcia has not shown that the district 

court abused its discretion by denying him a sentence reduction. See United 

States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1010 (5th Cir. 1995).

This appeal does not present a nonfrivolous issue. See Howard v. King, 

707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, Garcia’s motion for leave to 

proceed IFP is DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See 

Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 16-50152 Document: 00513725998 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/19/2016
Ryder Scott Company
Petroleum Consultants

1100 Louisiana                                              Fax (713) 651-0849
Suite 3800
Houston, TX  77002-5218                               Telephone (713) 651-9191






                      CONSENT OF PETROLEUM CONSULTING FIRM




      We consent to the  reference to our name included in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K for  the  year  ended December  31, 2001 for  Dyco Oil and Gas Program
1984-2 Limited Partnership.


                              //s// Ryder Scott Company, L.P.

                              RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P.




Houston, Texas
March 8, 2002
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

      ( print page 8729)    

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         February 8, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on January 30, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 177 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2024-170, CP2024-176.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-02542 Filed 2-7-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
EXHIBIT 99.4
                                  ------------



                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT BY
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In  connection  with  the  annual  report  of  Commodore  Environmental
Services,  Inc.  (the  Company) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended  December  31,
2002, hereby certifies,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to  Section  906 of the  Sarbanes  - Oxley Act of 2002,  that to the best of his
knowledge:

         (1)  The annual report fully complies with the  requirements of section
              13 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


Date: April 15, 2003
                                                     /s/ James M. DeAngelis
                                                     -----------------------
                                                     James M. DeAngelis
                                                     Chief Financial Officer
August 31, 2010

MEMORANDUM

TO: EPA Docket #EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0211

FROM: Robert Anderson, Environmental Protection Specialist, EPA/OAR/OTAQ/CISD

RE: Preliminary Data from Tier DOE Catalyst Durability Program (V4/CRC E-87-2)

Attached is an Excel spreadsheet that contains preliminary data from the DOE Catalyst Durability Test 

Program also referred to as the DOE V4 program or the CRC E-87-2 program. These data are preliminary 

results for the non-Tier 2 vehicle portion of the test program.

The enclosed spreadsheet contains all data for non-Tier 2 vehicles submitted to EPA from DOE as of 

October 25, 2010. It should be noted that these data are preliminary and therefore, subject to change

based on ongoing QA/QC. 

For more information, please contact Robert Anderson at either anderson.robert@epa.gov or (202) 343-

9718.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 1, 2019

No. 04

- 18

- 00547

- CR

Desere Devine DAVILA, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 4, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 569002 Honorable Jason Roland Garrahan, Judge Presiding



### A M E N D E D O R D E R

We originally issued an order on January 8, 2019, setting a due date for the pro se brief and holding counsel’s moti o n to withdraw in abatement. However, we inadvertently failed to serve a copy of the order on appellant. Accordingly, we issue th is amended order.

Appellant ’ s court

- appointed attorney has filed a brief and motion to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. Couns el certifies he served copies of th e brief and motion on appellant, informed appellant of h er right to review the record and file h er s own brief, and provided appellant with a form for requesting the record and explained to appellant the procedure for

obta ining the record. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Nichols v.

State , 954 S.W.2d 83 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1997, no pet. ); Bruns v. State , 924 S.W.2d 176,

177 n.1 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1996, no pet. ). To date, appellant has not filed the form provided by his counsel.

If appellant desires to file a pro se brief, we ORDER that s he do so on or before April 1,

2019 . The State has filed a notice waiving its right to file a brief in this case unless appellant files a pro se brief. If appellant files a timely pro se brief, the State may file a responsive brief no later than thirty days after appellant ’ s pro se brief is filed in this court.

We further ORDER the motion to withdraw file d by appellant ’ s counsel held in abeyance pending further order of the court. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80

- 82 (1988) (holding that motion to withdraw should not be ruled on before appellate court independentlyreviews record to determine whether co unsel ’ s evaluation that appeal is frivolous is sound);

Schulman v. State , 252 S.W.3d 403, 410

- 11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (same).

We order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this order on a ppellant, h er appointed counsel, the attorney for the State, and the clerk of the trial court.

________________________________ _ Beth Watkins , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 1st day of March, 2019

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 14

- 00219

- CR

Freddy Earl PERRYMAN

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012CR9136

Honorable Mary D. Roman, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ANGELINI

, JUSTICE MARION , AND JUSTICE BARNARD

In accordance with this court’s memorandum opinion of this date, this appeal is

DISMISSED. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(d).

SIGNED May 14, 2014.

_____________________________ Karen Angelini, Justice