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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          23,275
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,117
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,149
<INVENTORY>                                     24,930
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                77,858
<PP&E>                                          98,616
<DEPRECIATION>                                  58,996
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 123,816
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           42,191
<BONDS>                                        105,512
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            85
<OTHER-SE>                                    (38,723)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   123,816
<SALES>                                         49,938
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                49,938
<CGS>                                           36,708
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   36,708
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,085
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,822
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,354
<INCOME-TAX>                                       143
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,211
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,211
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Opinion filed November 8, 2012

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

__________

No. 11-12-00321-CR

__________

IN RE MELTON SELL

Original Mandamus Proceeding

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appearing pro se, relator Melton Sell, a prison inmate, has filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus. In his petition, relator complains that the district judge of the 42nd District Court of 

Taylor County should be ordered to grant his motion to vacate his plea or correct his sentence by 

a judgment nunc pro tunc. Finding we lack jurisdiction, we dismiss the petition.

The substance of the relief relator seeks by mandamus is essentially a request for 

postconviction habeas corpus relief because he is seeking an order from this court in support of 

his attempt to set aside his original conviction and sentence. The habeas corpus procedure set 

out in Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides the exclusive remedy for 

felony postconviction relief in state court. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07, § 5 

(West Supp. 2012); Bd. of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for the Eighth 

Dist., 910 S.W.2d 481, 484 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). There is no role for the courts of appeals in 

the procedure under Article 11.07. See Article 11.07, § 3; Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 

S.W.2d 241, 242 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (orig. proceeding). Furthermore, an application for 

writ of habeas corpus is generally an adequate remedy that will preclude mandamus relief. In re 
2

Piper, 105 S.W.3d 107, 109 (Tex. App.—Waco 2003, orig. proceeding) (citing Banales v. Court 

of Appeals for the Thirteenth Judicial Dist., 93 S.W.3d 33, 36 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (orig.

proceeding)). Accordingly, we dismiss relator’s petition for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

November 8, 2012

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Gray, C.J., 10th Court of Appeals.1

 

1

Tom Gray, Chief Justice, Court of Appeals, 10th District of Texas at Waco, sitting by assignment to the 11th Court of 

Appeals.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 5310** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. JUSTIN MATTHEW , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dist rict of North Carolina , at Charlotte
. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., Chief District Judge. ( 3:06

- cr - 00016

- RJC

- CH

- 1 )

Submitted : October 14, 2011 Decided: October 20, 2011

Before WILKINSON and AGEE , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Af firmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Angela G. Parrott, Acting Executive Director, Matthew R. Segal, Allison Wexler, Assistant Federal Defenders, Asheville, North Carolina, Elizabeth A. Blackwood, Assistant Federal Defender, Charlotte, North Caroli na, for Appellant. Anne M. Tompkins, United States Attorney, Laura L. Ferris, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Justin Matthew pled guilty without a plea agreement to one count of possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841 (West 1999 & Supp. 2011), and one count of knowingly using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c)(1) (West 2000 & Supp. 2011) , and was sentenced to seventy months in prison
. He appeals from the district court’s judgment, challenging only the district court ’s decision to enhance his base offense level four l evels under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 3B1.5(2)(B) (2006), based on the fact that he was wearing a bulletproof vest at the time he committed a drug trafficking crime
. We affirm the district court’s judgment. We review the district cour t’s factual findings underlying its Guidelines range calculation for clear error, and its legal interpretation of the Guidelines de novo. See United States v. Farrior , 535 F.3d 210, 223 (4th Cir. 2008)
. Under USSG § 3B1.5 , an enhancement for body armor s hould be applied if: ( 1) the defendant was convicted of a drug trafficking crime or a crime of violence; and (2) the offense involved the use of body armor, or (3) the defendant used body armor during the commission of the offense, in preparation for the offense, or in an attempt to avoid apprehension for the offense
. See USSG3 § 3B1.5 (2006) . If the offense involved the use of body armor,
a two

- level enhancement applies, USSG § 3B1.5(2)(A) , and if the defendant used body armor during the commission of, i n preparation for , or in an attempt to avoid apprehension for the offense, a four

- level enhancement applies. USSG § 3B1.5(2)(B)
. We have reviewed the record and considered the parties ’ arguments and discern no error in the district court’s decision to ap ply the four

- level enhancement under USSG § 3B1.5(2)(B). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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
## S IXTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL



## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 6D23-916 Lower Tribunal No. CF20-005161-XX

_____________________________

T RISTAN A NDRES L ANZA , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________ Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County. Donald G. Jacobsen, Judge.

April 30, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

STARGEL, SMITH and MIZE, JJ., concur.

Howard L. “Rex” Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Lisa B. Lott, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Krystle Celine Cacci, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
, ' 

I 

1.ll 1t-\E touR...'\ of tR-1~11\JI~L f\~~Ef\-L\ 

h>Q- \.+\ [ STf\. T( of \ E 'i ~ ( 

. ~1L.1 oN \l E.n.J\M \hl 1 Lll A.lv\ <; 

fl..rr~t'""' ~' 

'L 

Slf\lL o~ IE'I.f\<;f d· CA\ 

f\ffe \\ee (s\. 

\ 

~ 

I 

\ 

) 

~ 

\ 

' \ 

\ 

coMES ~o\l'l \ {~-e\v.-\.l)rl~rre\\o-f'\-\\ tA_·,\\-o,-, \\, \U~I\~~~~ ~~ \ t~\ej 

-t-~-e C\bu\fe _c,..\-c,J~\'!p~c..\ q,"'J.. <;~c....~es -\-~"~ -\-he c..ui.Af+ 1~\u.p,J 

c\£()i~\ \t./r~~ ~r~t\.e" orJ...e( o"' ~~\i ~11, \ct£1SL 'btJ ~:J 

"vt ~r1.~\ sA.~d ~eV\~c.\ -\-'> k\"'~or I 1\f~\~cv..~ Ud\t l f\v..j\1\c;t o t,, 

J. Dl5 '.Vh~c_h. \.t-Il)~ e7'",~-\.- J... ~f; u.\-\-er SCl~d ~Pc..~S~o 1\ '\}.)0.$ ~c..o\ P ttr\J 

\~ ~ ~~ 1\o-\-- lAf\\', ~ K~~~~ \0 I ;2. 0 \~ \ 50 rn(l l \.l \ c}_q_ y s £X. ~ter S£:1 ~~ 

~e.c~~icif' ... ," ~ ',Sao o~ C.olflt-ed>:nAe 1 a.-\\etVYr+ +~ ck.Pn1 lto\ot:vr 

a.c.C£$.~ 1-o LUlA/4,. · o.."l f(e'\It.l\-\- \\, d\ ~(ot?" D\.pfet-t\ '") ~c..~J t(,\lol tiu ') 

t\ec.~s;o,., +o c.. fr';~ \'o-.c..'ie C-v..Cf' ~~" ~CA.\IcJ( o-f 'k\C'l-\--"r 1 5c,.;~ 

&..e.-ciS ;of\ \NtA.S re..ce\ \!e.~ ~\I ~~p~\\~"'\- '\ C" \\ (' \ r ll l 

\ 

I R.e.Sp ec:.. "'\-\ v-. ~ .:>u ~tv\ ,T\ e ~ 

IS [ 1\~ ~. 3\JJ....-- ~ 3~q3J~ LooocJ 

tv\\\-\-on \le.ro..A \\J-,l~~".w:; ~3 Vt31S' 

(!•"'h E. ~CA.~,\\,\"' Cu rrecho.,c..t\ C.e.."\.et 

s--,l\io<K tv\1"er"'\ ~er'"',<; koc,J. 

H o J., C;)t"' 1 o~\ (A • . "'~ L\ C{ 31 

2 
~~ \--ere_b~ c.eA~~1\ ~u\ c. -\-{u.P o..nA c_orfPc-\--e,\ eopll 6~ 

tke .\'Cif~_j~\r.'\' ~o\\~ 0~ ~~~~\ r-i-b ~.p :Iu\'-\ ;)..'\, ~o\<; .d.e-t\~CA \ ~ \i~-6~ '\)..\r1 ~.P" or~fl_f' .,!", -\-he Cl.bo"!f -:,..\-'/ \f c__CA.v.s.P \ 

'-NCJ..<; rno.~\e~ oY\ l\.\A~u.<;+-. \\, d-D\~, po&\-c.JP freplA~cA \ +hrc.uj~ 

LL S~ Voc.-\-CA-\ ~er\l;c~ \ ~o -\-~e_ \Je..\o'\t-1 \~s\eJ f"'(\-~es ", 

JLau.c_Lol_ c.r; "'.'"'" \ fl.~ ~;..\s -foi +he &\-o.\e o~ Te'>l-CA ' 

~-\to : c\ e( L Lhlle_ \ ~cu s.\-a.\ 

P. o. Box 1)..30<( 

_C~~J:IDL SIA\j()\\ 

,~U.ST:r~) Ti ISil) 

cc.: 

iHflT£D SlllrTE5 CpurLT o t=' 11-PPEA:LS 

_"fo~ THE. riFT~ uuun 

leJL\2._ s . M ~'E. srt ~t.:r P Lfrc E ___ _ 

11 I-\N o tt. u~: A 1\1 s , L ~ "'~ o t 7> o - 3 g o g 

_:f!\~ ~_, ~~ ~ 3q£13J ~ ( U !DC\ 

L ~ ~~~(\\) 

UWTTEO ST~IE) SCiPRtME Cuut:T 

KITN . c L~ f2.K ( \k\1 LLJ:A'M \L. s uTf~) 

I \d. S1R.EE1 \\1~ 

uwn·t..O STATtS 'lJ:tS'TR.TC-1 C..O\Nft'T l'OftLL~~ in \fiTS~ 2) tJj -~-_c~~­

\\00 c..o\\J\\"1\tR.CE. Sllt.Ef.l", ~ooW\ ~\~S;).. 

llh.ll f\ s, +- T~ I 5 ::2 ().l _. L{(~ D b 

.2.. 

Mti\\,J ~c:..~<, ~o Po.r.\.her = 

1)\~ 'L ~Vv-- •3~li 3~5 [oD oc) 

ot 1
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION




By signing below, each of the undersigned officers hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, (i) this report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained
in this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of White River Capital, Inc.






Date: March 15, 2010./s/ John M. Eggemeyer, IIIJohn M. Eggemeyer, IIIChief Executive Officer/s/ Martin J. SzumskiMartin J. SzumskiChief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of the Chief Executive Officer

In connection with the quarterly report of BidGive International, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for
the three months ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), James P. Walker, Jr., the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to Exchange
Act Rule 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b) and 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/  James P. Walker, Jr.
						James P. Walker, Jr.Chief Executive Officer

Date:  May 17, 2004
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF**

**CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND**

**CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-KSBof Advanced Technology Petroleum Corp. for the year ending January 31, 2008, I,Joseph Blimline, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of AdvancedTechnology Petroleum Corp. hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the bestof my knowledge and belief, that:

 

| 1.
Such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ending January    31, 2008, 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 such Annual Report on Form    10-KSB for the year ended January 31, 2008, fairly represents in all    material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of    Advanced Technology Petroleum Corp.
 

Date: January 7, 2009 
 
**Advanced Technology Petroleum Corp.**
 
By: /s/ Joseph Blimline 
Joseph Blimline 

Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
  |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### DAVIS et al. v. BODENHEIMER et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Oct. 23, 1953.

J. Milton Luker, London, for appellants.

Lewis & Weaver, London, for appellees.

CAMMACK, Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment sustaining the plea of res adjudicata of the ap-pellee, L. F. Bodenheimer. In 1950, Mary Prewitt Davis and her husband, Samuel Davis, instituted an action against L. F. Bo-denheimer in which they alleged that they were the owners and entitled to possession of an 80-acre tract of land. They asserted title by reason of a deed from J. B. and Maggie Sells, and also alleged that they had been in adverse possession of the land for more than 15 years. They alleged further that Bodenheimer was claiming to be the owner of the land under a purported deed from Maggie Sells. In an amended petition they set forth that the deed under which they claimed title had been destroyed and was never recorded. In his answer Bo-denheimer set up his claim to the land under a deed from Maggie Sells, and he admitted that he claimed to be the owner of the 80-acre tract. Both parties introduced proof in support of their claims to the land in dispute. The trial resulted in a judgment in favor of Bodenheimer, and he was placed in possession of the land. No appeal was prosecuted from that judgment, which was entered in July, 1950.

In December, 1950, the Davises instituted the action now before us to have Bodenheimer and Earl Neeley, to whom Bodenheimer had conveyed a portion of the 80-acre tract in dispute, ejected therefrom. The Davises set up their claim to the land under a deed executed by J. B. and Maggie Sells in 1934. A copy of the deed, which had been recorded in November, 1950, was filed with the petition. Bodenheimer and Neeley filed a general demurrer to the peti*680tion, and, without waiving the demurrer, Bodenheimer filed a separate answer wherein he set forth a plea of res adjudicata because of the judgment in his favor in the prior action. Bodenheimer’s plea of res adjudicata was sustained. This appeal followed.

We think the chancellor properly-disposed of the case. Title to the 80-acre tract of land was the subject of both actions. Evidence of ownership was essential in each case. In Wingfield v. Dockins, Ky., 251 S.W.2d 855, we pointed out that the doctrine of res adjudicata is that a right, question or fact, distinctly put in issue and directly determined by a court of competent jurisdiction as a ground of recovery, cannot be disputed in a subsequent action by the same parties or their privies. In that case, Dockins’ plea of res adjudicata in an action filed by the Wingfields to quiet title was sustained because Dockins’ claim to the land had been upheld in a former action of trespass filed by the Wingfields against him.

Judgment affirmed.
|                                                                                                
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                  
|View History: Annual                                                                            
|View History: Annual                                                                            
|View History:                                                                                   
|                                                                                                
|U.S. Federal Offshore Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves Revision Increases (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                
|                                                                                                
|U.S. Federal Offshore Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves Revision Increases (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 710   
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 879    | 1,966  | 1,264  | 666    | 1,066  | 725    | 805    | 1,077  | 969    | 561   
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 330    | 778    |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
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 Tranquility, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2010 (the Report), I, Dominick Pope, 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 requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.  July 28, 2010 /s/Dominick Pope
     Chief Executive Officer
| 1. | the      Report fully complies with the requirements of  Section 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. |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      January 7, 2009 |                                      |
|----------------------------|-------------------------------------------|
|                       | /s/ Shevach Saraf                         |
|                       | Shevach      Saraf                        |
|                       | Chairman,      President,                 |
|                       | Chief      Executive Officer,             |
|                       | Treasurer      and Chief FinancialOfficer |

----
112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2213 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 801 West Eastport Street in Iuka, Mississippi, 

as the ‘‘Sergeant Jason W. Vaughn Post Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 2213 EH

1 SECTION 1. SERGEANT JASON W. VAUGHN POST OFFICE. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 801 West Eastport Street in 

4 Iuka, Mississippi, shall be known and designated as the 

5 ‘‘Sergeant Jason W. Vaughn Post Office’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Sergeant Jason W. 

10 Vaughn Post Office’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 29, 2011. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2213 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostVaughn Post Office’’. Iuka, Mississippi, as the ‘‘Sergeant Jason W. al Service located at 801 West Eastport Street in