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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998             MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998             MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                             856                     379
<SECURITIES>                                       960                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      335                     113
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                        203                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,530                     507
<PP&E>                                             592                     261
<DEPRECIATION>                                     220                      58
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,722                   2,203
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              875                   1,328
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                            58                      43
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,789                     832
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,722                   2,203
<SALES>                                            348                      24
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   723                     549
<CGS>                                              155                      13
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      347                     410
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,280                   1,408
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,899)                 (6,938)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,899)                 (6,938)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.68)                  (1.72)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7786

RICHARD GRIFFIN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

ELIZABETH D. SCHER, individually and in her

official capacity; STERLING HALE MOORE, individually and in his official capacity,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Chief

District Judge. (CA-96-1192-AM)

Submitted: May 15, 1997 Decided: May 28, 1997

Before RUSSELL, HALL, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard Griffin, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, a Virginia inmate, appeals the district court's

order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint under

28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A(b)(1) (West Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the

record and the district court's opinion and find that this appeal

is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court. Griffin v. Scher, No. CA-96-1192-AM (E.D.

Va. Oct. 22, 1996). We deny Appellant's motion for the appointment

of counsel and 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.

DISMISSED
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

JOSE LUIS HUERTA, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-1227

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

 )

Opinion filed May 29, 2019. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee 

County; J. Frank Porter, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, 

and Robert D. Rosen, Assistant Public 

Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

BLACK, SALARIO, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
Exhibit 10.19  




  



	 	 	May 8, 2003







John D. Craig

6 Rick Road

Shillington PA 19607 


Dear
John: 


        With
reference to your employment agreement (the "Employment Agreement") with EnerSys, Inc. (the  "Company"), dated November 9, 2000, pursuant
to which you are currently employed as Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, we confirm that effective as of April 1, 2003, your salary provided for in Section 3 of the Employment Agreement has been increased to $725,000. 



        Except
as expressly set forth in the letter, the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 



	 	 	ENERSYS HOLDINGS INC.
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	By:	 	/s/  RICHARD W. ZUIDEMA      
 Richard W. Zuidema

Executive Vice President
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

IRVIN GOULBOURNE,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 290 EAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

IRVIN GOULBOURNE,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 291 EAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 3rd day of February, 2021, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                           OPNET TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

                           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 OPNET Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Marc A.
Cohen, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 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.


/s/ Marc A. Cohen

Marc A. Cohen
Chief Executive Officer
August 9, 2002
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of AppealsCAAP-12-000061430-AUG-201210:38 AM
#### In re Benjamin L. NISBET, Petitioner.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Dec. 7, 1956.

No counsel appeared for appellant.

No counsel appeared for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Benjamin L. Nisbet was convicted of a felony on May 7, 1932, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, and on March 2, 1933, an order was entered in the Hopkins Circuit Court disbarring him from the practice of law in all courts of this Commonwealth and his name was ordered stricken from the roll of the Hopkins County Bar, the home bar of Mr. Nisbet.

At the time of his conviction there was in force K.S. § 97 (1936 Ed.), which provided: “No person convicted of treason or felony shall be permitted to practice in any court as counsel or attorney-at-law.” This section later became KRS 30.100 and was repealed in 1948. See Acts of that year, Chapter 55, page 112. It was said in Re Rudd, 310 Ky. 630, 221 S.W.2d 688, that the commission of a crime forfeits an attorney’s privilege to practice law and that neither his pardon, restoration of citizenship nor the repeal of KRS 30.100 will restore that right. *It can*only be restored by this court upon application made under RCA 3.560.

Mr. Nisbet, now about 64 years of age, has filed his verified petition, conforming in all respects with RCA 3.560, wherein *466he asks that this court restore him to membership in the Kentucky State Bar Association. We referred the petition to the Board of Bar Commissioners. After a full hearing, at which five highly respected and prominent lawyers of Madisonville testified that Mr. Nisbet has not practiced law since his disbarment and that his character and conduct since that time have been exemplary and that he is now worthy to have public confidence and trust reposed in him, the Board filed their written report in this court wherein it was unanimously recommended that Mr. Nisbet be reinstated to membership in the Kentucky State Bar Association.

We have carefully examined the record and the report of the Board and concur therein. It is therefore ordered that Benjamin L. Nisbet be, and he is hereby, restored to membership in the Kentucky State Bar Association upon the payment of the cost of this proceeding and the cost incurred in the disbarment proceeding and he is given the right to resume the practice of law.

No counsel appeared for either side.
NUMBER 13-11-00081-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE MONICA MICHELENA

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Perkes

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion1

Relator, Monica Michelena, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above 

cause on February 15, 2011, seeking to compel the trial court to transfer venue of a suit 

affecting the parent-child relationship from Hidalgo County, Texas, to Cameron County, 

Texas. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 155.204 (Vernon 2008). By order issued on 

February 17, 2011, the Court requested that the real party in interest, Robert Michelena, 

file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus, and such response was duly filed 

on February 28, 2011. 

 

1

See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is 

not required to do so.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
2

Currently pending before the Court is relator’s motion to supplement the record. 

The Court hereby grants the motion to supplement the record. See TEX. R. APP. P.

52.7(a)(2), (b). 

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of 

mandamus and the response thereto, is of the opinion that relator has not shown herself 

entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. 

See id. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

10th day of March, 2011.
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 43803

STATE OF IDAHO

,

Plaintiff

- Respondent

,

v.

CHRISTOPHER E. CLENDENON, aka

CHRISTOPHER CLENDENON

,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 570

Filed: June 16, 2016

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, Canyon County. Hon. Bradly S. Ford , District Judge.

Order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence,

affirmed

.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Elizabeth A. Allred , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and GRATTON, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Christopher E. Clendenon pled guilty to lewd conduct with a minor under sixteen , Idaho

Code § 18

- 1508 . The district court imposed a unified life sentence, with a minimum period of

confinement of seven years

. Clendenon filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of

sentence, which the district court denied. Clendenon appeals.

A motion for reduction of sentence under I.C.R. 35 is essentially a plea for leniency,

addressed to the sound discretion of the court. State v. Knighton , 143 Idaho 318, 319, 144 P.3d

23, 24 (2006); State v. Allbee , 115 Idaho 845, 846, 771 P.2d 66, 67 (Ct. App. 1989). In2

presenting a Rule 35 motion, the defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of

new or additional information subsequently pro vided to the district court in support of the

motion. State v. Huffman , 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). An appeal from the

denial of a Rule 35 motion cannot be used as a vehicle to review the underlying sentence absent

the presentation of n ew information. Id. Because no new or additional information in support of

Clendenon ’s Rule 35 motion was presented, the district court did not abuse its discretion. For

the foregoing reasons, the district court’s order denying Clendenon ’s Rule 35 motion is affirmed.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT WALTER

SIGFR IDO M AR TINEZ, Pe titione r, v. ER IC H. HOLDER , Jr., Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R

e sponde nt . No. 12-72715 Age n c y No. A070-922-273 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d

Nove m b e r 19, 2013 ** B e fore : C ANB Y, TR OTT, a nd THOM AS, C irc uit Judge s. W a lte r Sigfrido M artine z , a native and c itiz e n

of Guate m a la , pe titions pro se for re vie w of the B o a

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ (“ B IA” ) orde r de ny ing his m otion to re o pe n d e porta

tion proc e e dings. W e have jurisdic t ion unde r 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e de ny the pe tition for re v ie w. 

# FIL ED D EC 11 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).In his ope ning brie f, M artine z fa i ls to ra ise , and the re fore ha s wa ive d, a ny c ha lle nge to the B IA’ s dispositive de te rm ination tha

t his m otion to re o pe n is untim e l y and num be r-barre d . S

e e Rizk v . Holde r , 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th C ir. 2011) (issue s not ra ise d in a pe titione r’ s ope ning brie f a re de e m e d wa i ve d). In light of this disposition, we ne e d not re a c h M artine z ’ s re m a ining c onte ntions. PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

1 2 - 7 2 7 1 5 2
TO: Docket EPA

- R09

- OAR

- 2010

- 1078 : EPA Action on Revision to South Coast Portion of the California State Implementation Plan; CPV Sentinel Energy Project AB 1318 Tracking System

FROM: Ann Lyons, Laura Yannayon

DATE: October 1 2, 2012

RE: Telephone Conference with South Coast Air Quality Management District Representatives

Participants:

Barbara Baird, Lauren Nevitt: South Coast Air Quality Management District

Laura Yannayon, Ann Lyons: EPA Region 9

EPA requested the telephone conference. The pu rpose of the telephone conference was for EPA to ask the South Coast Air Quality Management District for additional information regarding some of the offset transactions in the AB 1318 Tracking System. EPA also asked the District representatives questions about information in its AQMPs.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Curis, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended
June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Michael P. Gray, Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 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.

Dated: July 31, 2007



/s/    MICHAEL P. GRAYMichael P. GrayChief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
Sans Redesign / \

After Redesign \

/
OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

.. ,**oFFtc?AI(?aB3g1·~~g§L ST~TION.**  AU TIN.**Tp~AS u~-~OSTAGE»PI~~BO~S** **0~** . . 

### STATEOFTEXAS

..

### <r::~Y~-'-**((tt,~' ~1J~~**  PENALTY FOR 

## Af:\ •\:.;;f:

...**~'~i-** 

## . ·**~** == 

### PRIVATE USE

## id~~(~~:,.,·-~~i;"·"-~ t.

## ~~**~~101** 

## $**@(0)@.~(8) 5**  

### j ...-i-cuit"'- ·
. 000 140 1623 MAY. 12. 2015.**~o::** 

### WILLIAMS, DARRELL**ANTH0H~"** 

### "; On this day, the applicfation fo'fk

### ~·• / and presented to

.. ttie Court.

_..,.,..**~.£,** 

### &x:1,J-CR-2883-E WR-56 699-06 

### " rv. ' ,f Ji!:abeas Corpus has been received 

### 5/4/2015

Abel Acosta, Clerk**uf:...~** DARRELL ANTHONY WILLIAMS 

### \0**S'c.'~ ~et'** 

### ~y\J~~**\~' 1o~'** **e** P.O BOX 15

## ~(__~ecW**~~·o** t!

## ,_~\'f,otl~~~o~bRPUS Cf!Rt{)JI, TX 78403

:-- \f''-'<;>.\\ ' .• 1 1o\ e (\O •<'t\\":1 Ae(\C

---- C0"',

. o(W

---- co((es?



# ---- ANK

·1E8N38 78403 

### I 

# II J,J,I 

### 1. II ;il 1 

# II',,,,"''· i 

### 11l• 1" 

# ·II 1 

### 1·1.-11 1 

# t•'IJ 1 ll11'' 1 

# •lin
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE 

OF EDWARD R. PORTILLO

DECEASED.

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-23-00167-CV 

Appeal from the

Statutory Probate Court No. 2

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2018CPR00773)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the 

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. We further order that Appellee 

recover from Appellants all costs of appeal, for which let execution issue. This decision shall be 

certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 15TH DAY OF APRIL 2024.

JEFF ALLEY, Chief Justice

Before Alley, C.J., Palafox and Soto, JJ.
#### Salvador GARCIA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 38603.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 27, 1965.

No attorney on appeal, for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

McDONALD, Presiding Judge.

This is an appeal from an order revoking probation. On July 17, 1964, appellant was convicted for the offense of burglary with intent to commit theft; his punishment was assessed at five years. Imposition of sentence was suspended, and appellant was placed on probation. Motion to revoke probation was granted on the 25th day of September, 1964. Notice of appeal was given. The appeal was dismissed in that cause, No. 37,579, on January 13,1965, 386 S.W.2d 138, because sentence had never been imposed.

Appellant was sentenced on the 2nd day of April, 1965. Notice of appeal was given at that time. A new number, 38,603 was given appellant’s cause for the reason that the prior case, 37,579 had been dismissed.

Using the prior record in 37,579, and the supplemental transcript herein in this cause, which contains the sentence, the proceedings appear to be regular.

There is no statement of facts and no showing that the trial judge abused his discretion in revoking probation.

The judgment is affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.1


CERTIFICATION


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350


(Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)





In connection with the Amendment No. 3 to the Annual Report on 10-K of Sen Yu International Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Zhenyu Shang, Chief Executive Officer of the company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 operations of the company.








Date:  May 20, 2011





By:  /s/ Zhenyu Shang


Name: Zhenyu Shang


Title: Chief Executive Officer











This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the company and will be retained by the company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.