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


<ARTICLE>     5


<CAPTION>

Article 5 Fin. Data Schedule for 1st Qtr 10-Q

<S>                               <C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>                     6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                    JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                      JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                     0
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                              0
<ALLOWANCES>                               0
<INVENTORY>                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           0
<PP&E>                                     0
<DEPRECIATION>                             0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 17,125
<BONDS>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                               1,700
<OTHER-SE>                             4,760
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               0
<SALES>                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           0
<CGS>                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       4,271
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      (4,271)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            0
<INCOME-TAX>                          (4,271)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        0
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                          (4,271)
<EPS-BASIC>                           (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                           (.00)



</TABLE>
#### J. C. WYNN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27470.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 16, 1955.

No attorney on appeal.

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

PER CURIAM.

This purports to be an appeal from a conviction for aggravated assault on a female, with punishment assessed at a fine of $25.

As required by Art. 827, C.C.P., the record does not reflect that a notice of appeal was given and entered of record.

In the absence thereof, this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.

The appeal is dismissed.
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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

April 3, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-41115 

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RAFAEL GRACIA GUERRERO,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(B-00-CR-514-1-S)

Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Rafael Gracia Guerrero appeals his conviction, following a

jury trial, for bank robbery. 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) & (d) (taking

money with force, violence or intimidation from a bank). In

contending the district court erred in denying his motion for a

judgment of acquittal, Guerrero claims insufficient evidence

proving his identity as one of the bank robbers. There was

evidence: Guerrero was a major contributor of DNA to a ski mask

found at the bank; he participated in robberies with similar modus
2

operandi; and his behavior upon being stopped for a traffic

violation indicated a guilty conscience. Viewed in the light most

favorable to the government, a rational jury could have found,

beyond a reasonable doubt, that Guerrero was one of the bank

robbers. E.g., United States v. Edwards, 303 F.3d 606, 635 (5th

Cir. 2002), cert. denied, __ S.Ct. __, 71 U.S.L.W. 3430 (24 Feb.

2003). 

Guerrero also contends the district court erred by admitting

claimed hearsay testimony discrediting his alibi. Even if the

testimony were hearsay, given the evidence of Guerrero’s guilt, the

admission constituted harmless error. E.g., Edwards, 303 F.3d at

623.

AFFIRMED
SAT Report

PMN Number: P-13-0180

SAT Date: 1/4/2013

Print Date: 2/4/2013

Related cases:

Concern levels:

Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments

Level of Concern: 2 3

 Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments

1 2 1 Linear

2 3 1 Branched

Exposure Based Review:

Health:

Ecotox: No

Routes of exposure: Health: Dermal Inhalation 

Ecotox: All releases to water

Fate: ;

Keywords:

 Keywords: IRR/CORR-S,E,L,MM; AQUATOX

Summary of Assessment:

 Fate:

Fate Summary: P-13-0180-5

FATE: Estimations for low weight 

Liquid with MP < 25 C (E)

log Kow = 5.97 (E); 

S = Dispersible/0.3 mg/L at 25 C (E)

VP < 1.0E-6 torr at 25 C (E)

BP > 400 C (E)

H < 1.00E-8 (E)
log Koc = 5.04 (E)

log Fish BCF = 2.2 (E)

log Fish BAF = 2.7 (E) 

POTW removal (%) = 90 via sorption and biodeg

Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg = Linear wk; Highly branched ≥ mo

Sorption to soils/sediments = v.strong

PBT Potential: Linear P1B2; Highly branched P2B3

*CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = negl

 Health:

 Health Summary: Absorption is poor from the skin, moderate from the GI 

tract, and good from the lung (analog). Concern for severe irritation and possible corrosion from 

the amines.

 Ecotox:

Test Organism Test 

Type

Test End 

Point

Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 *

daphnid 48-h LC50 *

green algal 96-h EC50 0.01

fish _ chronic value 0.002

daphnid _ chronic 

value

0.004

algal _ chronic 

value

0.004

Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50 _

Sewage Sludge _ Chronic 

Value

_

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for Aliphatic Amines; SAR class 

= Aliphatic Amines; log Kow = 6.0; S = 0.0003 g/L at 20 C, dispersible; pH7; liquid 

with unknown mp (P); effective concentrations based on 100% active ingredients and measured 

concentrations; hardness <150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and TOC <2.0 mg/L;

Factors Values Comments

Assessment Factor 10

Concentration of Concern 

(ppb)

1

SARs Aliphatic Amines, Amides

SAR Class Aliphatic Amines

Ecotox Category Aliphatic Amines

Ecotox Factors Comments: 
 SAT Chair: L Keifer 564-8916
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6819

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

PHILIP MICHAEL BRADY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Herbert N. Maletz, Senior Judge, sitting

by designation. (CR-95-465-PJM, CA-97-792-HNM)

Submitted: September 11, 1997 Decided: September 23, 1997

Before RUSSELL, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Philip Michael Brady, Appellant Pro Se. Stuart A. Berman, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997).

We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Appellant's motion

for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the

reasoning of the district court. United States v. Brady, No. CR-95-

465-PJM; CA-97-792-HNM (D. Md. Apr. 14, 1997). 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.

DISMISSED
#### COAST FEDERAL BANK, FSB, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 02-5032.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Feb. 14, 2008.

Charles J. Cooper, Cooper & Kirk, PLLC, of Washington, DC, filed a response to the petition for rehearing for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the response was Michael W. Kirk. Of counsel were David H. Thompson and Derek L. Shaffer.

David M. Cohen, Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, filed a combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc for defendant-appellee. With him on the petition were Stuart E. Schiffer, Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Jeanne E. Davidson, Deputy Director; and John N. Kane, Jr., Trial Attorney. Of counsel was John J. Hoffman, Trial Attorney.

*1339ON COMBINED PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING AND REHEARING EN BANC

*ORDER*

A combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc having been filed by the Appellee, a response thereto having been invited by the court and filed by the Appellant, the petition for panel rehearing having been referred to the panel that heard the appeal, thereafter the petition for rehearing en banc and response having been referred to the circuit judges who are in regular active service, and a poll having been requested and taken,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The petition for panel rehearing is denied.

(2) The petition for rehearing en banc is granted.

(3) Acting en banc, the court vacates the panel’s judgment and original opinion entered on October 8, 2002, *Coast Federal Bank, FSB v. United States,*309 F.3d 1353 (Fed.Cir.2002).

(4) The court shall decide the case on the briefs that have already been filed, without further oral argument.

(5) Each party shall submit 24 copies of the brief(s) they filed in this case within seven days of the date of filing of this order.
EXHIBIT NO. 32.1
Form 10-QSB
KIK Technology International, Inc.
File No. 000-30071


          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 KIK Technology  International,  Inc.
(the  "Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period  ending  April 30, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, William M.  Knooihuizen,  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 results of operations of the Company.


Date: June 10, 2005                              By: /s/ William M. Knooihuizen
      -------------                                 ----------------------------
                                                          William M. Knooihuizen
                                                         Chief Executive Officer

In connection with the Quarterly  Report of KIK Technology  International,  Inc.
(the  "Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period  ending  April 30, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Kuldip C. Baid, Chief Financial  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 results of operations of the Company.


Date: June 10, 2005                              By: /s/ Kuldip C. Baid
      -------------                                 ----------------------------
                                                                  Kuldip C. Baid
                                                         Chief Financial Officer


A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to KIK  Technology  International,  Inc.  and will be  retained by KIK
Technology  International,  Inc. and  furnished to the  Securities  and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 32



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 BOE Financial Services of
Virginia, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned 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 Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934
(15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 780(d)); and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of June 30, 2005, and for the periods then ended.



|                          
|--------------------------
|/s/ George M. Longest, Jr.
|George M. Longest, Jr.    
|Chief Executive Officer   
|                          
|/s/ Bruce E. Thomas       
|Bruce E. Thomas           
|Chief Financial Officer   
|                          
|August 11, 2005           



Page: 21
Certification
      of CEO Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350,


as
      Adopted Pursuant to Section 906


of
      the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned certifies that (1) this Annual
Report of Capital City Bank Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (this “Report”), fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and (2) the information contained in this Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition of the Company and its results of
operations as of and for the periods covered therein.











/s/ William G. Smith,
      Jr.


William
      G. Smith, Jr.


Chairman,
      President and


Chief
      Executive Officer







Date:
March 4, 2010
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

131719 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 131719 

 COA: 269854 

Muskegon CC: 02-047276-FH

02-047280-FH 

JEFFREY LLOYD HEADY,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 7, 2006 order of 

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that 

the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

p1120 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

November 29, 2006 

 Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         691,797
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,756,180
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,519,997
<PP&E>                                     166,397,087
<DEPRECIATION>                             158,392,914
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,524,170
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,877,180
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,646,990
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,524,170
<SALES>                                     12,066,643
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            12,225,647
<CGS>                                        3,428,671
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,428,671
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               552,818
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,818
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              8,244,158
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          8,244,158
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 8,244,158
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    5,260
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    5,260
        

</TABLE>
March 28, 2013

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

ROBERT BITTINGER, Appellant

NO. 14-12-01080-CV V.

WELLS FARGO BANK, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CERTIFICATE HOLDERS 

OF SOUNDVIEW HOME LOAN TRUST 2007-OPT1, ASSET BACKED 

CERTIFICATES SERIES 2007-OPT1; AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE 

SERVICING, INC., (ASHMI), SHAREHOLDERS JOHN DOES 1-499 OF 

SOUNDVIEW HOME LOAN TRUST, Appellees

________________________________

Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the 

judgment signed by the court below on November 27, 2012. Having considered the 

motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by 

appellant, Robert Bittinger.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________

No. 98-20503

Summary Calendar

_______________

SONYA HUNTER REED,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

CITY OF HOUSTON,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(H-97-CV-693)

_________________________

January 19, 1999

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In this employment discrimination case, the district court

granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant employer because

the plaintiff did not sue within ninety days of receiving her

right-to-sue letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission. In a careful and detailed nine-page opinion entered on

May 12, 1998, the court explained that there were no disputed

issues of material fact and that the city was entitled to judgment
2

as a matter of law.

We affirm, essentially for the reasons stated by the district

court. The notice was sent by certified mail to the address

plaintiff had furnished to the EEOC. Postal records indicate it

was delivered to the plaintiff, who did not sue for more than six

months.

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

No. 11-41161 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSE RUBEN ARGUETA-PADILLA, Also Known as Alej a n d r o A r g u e t a - R i v e r a , Defendant-Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas No. 1:10-CR-1126-1

Before SMITH, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *

Jose Ar g u e t a -Padilla appeals the sentence imposed following his guiltyplea conviction of being found unlawfully present in the United S tates after 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 March 20, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should 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: 11-41161 Document: 00512181783 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/20/2013No. 11-41161

deportation. He asse r t s t h a t the district court plainly e rred in applying a sixteen-level e nhancement pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 2L1.2(b)- (1)(A)(i). Because Argueta-Padilla did not object to the enhancement in the district court, review is limited to plain error. See Puckett v . United States , 5 56 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). To show plain error, Argueta-Padilla m u st show a f orfeited error that is clear o r obvious and that affects his substantia l r i g h t s . See id. If he makes s u ch a showing, this court has the d iscretion to correct the error, but only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, o r public reputation of judicial proceedings. Henderson v. United States , 133 S. Ct. 1121, 1123 (2013). Argueta-Padilla concedes that h is conviction o f count one in Mar y l and Case No. 105209C for distribution of a controlled dangerous substance qualifies

as a drug-trafficking offense. In view of that concess i o n , h e c a nnot show any error, much les s p l a in e r ror, in the application of the enhancement. ArguetaPadilla’s motion to withdraw counsel and appoint new counsel is DENIED. The judgment of sentence is AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 11-41161 Document: 00512181783 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/20/2013