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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the audited
consolidated balance sheet and consolidated statements of operations of
Alternative Living Services, Inc., filed with the Company's Form 10-K for the
period ended December 31, 1996 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements and related footnotes.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          25,796
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,673
<ALLOWANCES>                                        59
<INVENTORY>                                        298
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                32,399
<PP&E>                                          84,296
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,480
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 126,536
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,219
<BONDS>                                         28,649
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        76,108
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,614
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   126,536
<SALES>                                         39,599
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                39,599
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   43,666
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    28
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,561
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,811)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,811)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,811)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.79)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.79)


</TABLE>
1 

## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 12

- 00557

- CR

Carl Edward Danzey

v.

The State of Texas §
§
§
§
§ From t he 396th District Court

o f Tarrant County ( 1218702D )
February 28 , 2013

P er C uriam
(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This c ourt 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 CURIAM2 

## 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 OPINION 1

----------
In Febru ary 2011, Appellant Carl Edward Danzey pleaded guilty pursuant
to a plea bargain to assault

– family viol ence 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. O n September 26, 2012, the trial court supplemented Danzey’s conditions of
community supervision by requiring him to “serve a term of confinement and

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

treatment in a State of Texas Contracted Intermediate Sanction Fa cility for a
period of not less than 4 5 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, o n 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.

T his court does not have jurisdiction to consider an appeal from an order
altering or modifying t he conditions o f community super vision

. 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.

— Ama rillo June 6, 2001, no pet.) (not designated for publicatio n.).
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 2 8 , 2013
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

ERIN BOVE,

Petitioner

v.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARD (STEIN D/B/A PROVIDER OF CO

OP SERVICES),

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 12 EAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the

Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 30th day of June, 2020

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
## I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-20560

BALRAM R. JERRY, Plaintiff - Appellant
v. FLUOR CORPORATION; FLUOR ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston

4:10-CV-1505

Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * 

### After carefully reviewing the record and considering the briefs of the parties a nd a rgume n t o f counsel, we are satisfied the evidence adequately supports the jury’s verdict. We also conclude t hat the trial c ourt c ommitted no reversible error in its evidentiary rul i n g s that a ppellant challenges i n this appeal. We, t h erefore, affirm the judgment of the trial court entered on the jury’s verdict. AFFIRMED. U n i t e d S t a te s C o u r t o f A p p e al s F i f t h C i rc u i t 

## F I L E D June 18, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5, the court has determ ined that this op inion s hould not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. 

### Case: 12-20560 Document: 00512278626 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/18/2013
**Exhibit32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONSPURSUANT TO**

**SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**(18U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**

In connection with theaccompanying quarterly report of Whittier Energy Corporation (the “Company”) onForm 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2006, (the “Report”), I, Michael B.Young, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify that to myknowledge:

(1)          The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act    (15 U.S.C.78m or 78o (d)); and

(2)          Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Date: August 14, 2006 | * * | */s/ Michael B. Young*  |
|-----------------------|----------|-------------------------|
|                  |     | Michael B. Young        |
|                  |     | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
Exhibit 10.44



Public Media Works, Inc.

14759 Oxnard Street

Van Nuys, California 91411



December 21, 2005



Stephen Brown

Chief Executive Officer

Public Media Works, Inc.

14759 Oxnard Street

Van Nuys, California 91411



|Re: | Termination of Employment Agreement and Modification of Option Agreement
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dear Stephen:



This letter confirms the agreement between Public Media Works, Inc. (the Company) and I to terminate my Consulting Agreement dated as of October 1, 2005.
Such termination shall be effective as of December 21, 2005. I further acknowledge and agree that the Company has no obligations to pay to me any accrued or future fees in any manner whatsoever under the consulting agreement.



This letter further confirms the agreement between the Company and I to amend the terms of
the Option Agreement dated as of October 1, 2005 to provide that any and all unexercised options under the Option Agreement shall expire if not exercised by me within six (6) months after I cease to be on the Board of Directors of the
Company.



|                         |  |                     
|------------------------ |  | --------------------
|Sincerely,              
|                        
|/s/    THOMAS
SZABO     
|Thomas Szabo            
|                        
|Acknowledged and Agreed:
|                        
|Public Media Works, Inc.
|                         | 
|By:                      |  | /s/    STEPHEN BROWN
|                         |  | Stephen Brown, CEO
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Consolidated
Capital Properties V 1996 Year-End 10-KSB and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such 10-KSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000725614
<NAME> CONSOLIDATED CAPITAL PROPERTIES V
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             290
<SECURITIES>                                       107
<RECEIVABLES>                                       30
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          20,362
<DEPRECIATION>                                  13,071
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   9,260
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                         11,294
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2,763)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     9,260
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,152
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,029
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 959
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (275)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,152)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (6.40)<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2



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

In connection with the Annual Report of Soyo Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the  quarter  ended  June 30,  2008 as filed  with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  the undersigned,  Nancy
Chu, Chief  Financial  Officer of the Company  certifies,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that:

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

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


 /s/ Nancy Chu
-----------------------
Nancy Chu
Chief Financial Officer
August 14, 2008
THE STATE 

OIALASKA 

Decemb~r 7, 2015 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Attn: Director, Office of Airport Compliance 

& Management Analysis 

800 Independence Ave, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Dear Mr. Huffman, 

Department of Transportation and 

Public Facilities 

OFFICE OF THE COMM ISSIONER 

P.O . Box 196900 

Anchorage. Alaska 99.5 19-6900 

Main: 907.269.0730 

Fox: 907.269.0489 

The State of Alaska Department ofTransportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF) is in receipt ofthe 

Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) adopted FAA Policy and Procedures Concerning the Use of 

Airport Revenue; Proceeds from Taxes on Aviation Fuel, (79 Fed. Reg. 6628) (Amendment) issued on 

November 7, 2014 clarifying the FAA's Policy and Procedures Concerning the Use of Airport Revenue 

(64 Fed. Reg. 7696, February 16, i999) (Revenue Use Policy). This letter serves as the State's response 

as required by the FAA's updated policy. 

The State of Alaska owns and operates 247 airports across the state at a cost of approximately $39 million 

annually. The airport system generates approximately $5.2 million of revenue annually, with the 

remaining operating cost funded through a state general fund appropriation to DOT&PF. Ofthe 

communities associated with these state airports, eleven collect a local tax on aviation fuel, generating 

approximately $2.5 million annually. Eighty percent of this revenue is generated on tax structures that 

were in place prior to December 30, 1987 and so qualify for grandfather status, according to the FAA 

policy clarification. The State of Alaska's aviation fuel tax generates -$4.5 million and also qualifies for 

grandfather status. 

The State of Alaska's significant general fund appropriation to the state aviation system (- $32.8 million 

annually) ensures that all aviation-related revenue generated by fuel taxes is being appropriately invested 

back into the aviation system in accordance with Grant Assurance 25 and the FAA policy. Thus, · 

thorough analysis indicates that the State of Alaska is compliant with the FAA policy amendment and that 

no further actions are required at this time. 

Sincerely, 

Vl

J,i-/2 ohn Binder ~ 

Deputy Commissioner of Aviation 

Department of Transportation & Public Facilities 

CC: Marc Luiken, Commissioner 

Troy LaRue, Division Operations Manager, Statewide Aviation 

· l·:o.!ep , J Iaska Moving thm11gh service and i 11/rcJstructur<J "
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT MICHAEL B. SELIG, Petitioner

v. ERIC SMITH, SHELIA SELIG-SMITH SLOYER, AND RAYMOND D. SLOYER, Respondents : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 723 MAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 17th day of December, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
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:  July 19, 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.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS

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



I, Howard M. Bailey, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Occam Networks, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information
contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Occam Networks, Inc.



By:

/s/    HOWARD M. BAILEYName:

Howard M. BaileyTitle:

Chief Financial Officer




A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Occam Networks, Inc. and will be retained by Occam Networks, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit 32.1**

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

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert O. Carr, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge: 

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 Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

Date: August 8, 2008
#### Hayden & Co. v. Goeppinger *et al.*

Appeal : NO NOTICE TO CLERK : DISMISSED.

*Appeal from HaiMlton District Court.—*Hon. S. M. Weaver, Judge.

Filed, February 6, 1889.

*754*Kamrar & Boeye,*for appellants.

Ho appearance for appellees.

Heed, C. J.

This cause was submitted in this court on an abstract which shows that a notice of appeal was served by defendants. L. and H. Goeppinger, on plaintiffs and the other defendants, but does not show the service of the notice on the clerk of the district court. Service of the notice on the clerk is essential to the appeal. Code, sec. 3178; *McManus v. Swift,*76 Iowa, 576. The cause must therefore be

Dismissed.
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Toni Macaluso Cichy

, * From the 142nd District

Court of Midland County,

Trial Court No. CR40041

.

Vs. No. 11

- 13

- 00366

- CR * November 12 , 2015

The State of Texas

, * Memorandum Opinion by Wright, C. J

. (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson , J. , and Bailey, J. )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that

there is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this

court ’ s opinion, the judgment of the tri al court is in all things affirmed.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Boston Executive Helicopters 

Complainant 

v. 

Town of Norwood, Massachusetts 

And Norwood Airport Commission 

Respondents 

FAA Docket No. 16-15-05 

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME 

This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based on the abovereferenced complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted 

Airport Enforcement Proceedings, 14 CFR Part 16. Pursuant to 14 CFR Part 16, subpart B, the 

date by which the Director's Determination will be issued in this matter is hereby extended to 

April 19, 2016. 

An extension of time is necessary and appropriate for a fair and complete determination in 

this case . 

. d:etflffp Acting Director, Airport Compliance 

and Management Analysis 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on Februar Ol6, I caused to be placed in the United States mail 

(first class mail, postage paid) a true copy of the Notice of Extension of Time addressed to: 

Counsel for Complainant: 

Timothy I. McCulloch 

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP 

2375 East Camelback Road 

Suite 750 

Phoenix, AZ 85016 

Counsel for Respondents: 

Brandon H. Moss, Esq. 

Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane, LLP 

Crown Colony Plaza 

300 Crown Colony Drive, Suite 410 

Quincy, Massachusetts 02169 

Town ofNorwood, Massachusetts 

566 Washington Street 

Norwood, Massachusetts 02062 

Norwood Airport Commission 

125 Access Road 

Norwood, Massachusetts 02062 

Copy to: 

FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket, AGC-61 0 

FAA Airport Compliance and Management 

Analysis, AC0-1 00 

laudia Roberts 

Office of Airport Compliance 

and Management Analysis