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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1997
<CASH>                                         265,478
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  819,168
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,167,193
<PP&E>                                       1,359,993
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,579,287
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,943,136
<BONDS>                                        969,703
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        74,390
<OTHER-SE>                                 (3,407,942)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,579,287
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,369,301
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,904,211
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,739,337
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              76,203
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,350,450)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,350,450)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,350,450)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.02)
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 208 (Thursday, October 26, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 64207]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27556]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RT01-10-000]


Allegheny Power; Notice of Filing

October 20, 2000.
    Take notice that on October 16, 2000, Allegheny Energy Service 
Corporation as agent for Monongahela Power Company, The Potomac Edison 
Company and West Penn Power Company, all doing business as Allegheny 
Power, filed an RTO Compliance Filing and Petition for Declaratory 
Order regarding its ``PJM West'' proposal.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should 
file a motion to intervene, comments, or protest with the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 
20426, in accordance with rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules 
of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such 
motions, comments and protests should be filed on or before November 
20, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission to determine 
the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make 
protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a 
party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on 
file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This 
filing may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Beginning November 
1, 2000, comments and protests may be filed electronically via the 
internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the 
instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-27556 Filed 10-25-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel, November 6, 2000, 8 AM to November 6, 2000, 6 PM, National Cancer Institute, 6120 Executive Boulevard, Conference Room J. Rockville, MD, 20852 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on October 19, 2000, 65 FR 62738.                

The meeting will be held on November 9, 2000 from 8 AM to 6 PM. The meeting is closed to the public.

Dated: October 25, 2000.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield, 

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 00-28107  Filed 11-01-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### Ex parte MARTIN.

No. 25268.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 21, 1951.

No attorney on appeal, for appellant

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

*627BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Relator is a convict serving the following described sentences in the State Penitentiary. He seeks his release on -the ground that he hás served the full time required of him under the law.

Relator was convicted in Cause No. 6159 in the 35th Judicial District Court, Brown County, on November 4th, 1940, and sentenced to a term of five years. The sentence following the judgment makes no reference to any other sentence.

He was convicted in' Cause No. -6160, 35th Judicial District, Brown County, on the 4th of November, 1940, of the offense of robbery and sentenced to a period of ten years., The sentence following this judgment makes no mention of any other conviction.

He was convicted in Cause No. 53712, Criminal District Court No. 2, Harris County, on October 28th, 1943, for the offense of robbery and was assessed a penalty of five years in the penitentiary. The sentence attempts to cumulate this with the 'Brown County sentences in the following language: “However, James Q. Martin is sentenced cumulative with sentence assessed in the District- Court of. Brown County, Texas.”

He was convicted in the Criminal District Court No. 2, Harris County, on October 28, 1943, in Cause No. 53714, of the offense of robbery by assault and assessed a penalty of five years in the penitentiary. The sentence following this judgment contains the following order: “Sentenced cumulative with #53712.”

He was convicted in the District Court No. 2, Harris County, Texas, on October 28, 1943, in Cause No. 53716 :for the offense of robbery by. assault and given a sentence of five years. The sentence on this judgment makes no reference to any other sentence. , .

The foregoing quoted cumulative order in Cause No. 53712, Criminal District Court No. 2, Harris County, is indefinite and uncertain in its description of the sentence to which the court attempts to make it cumulative. The question has been so frequently before this court that it is not necessaty to refer to the authorities.

The order making the sentence in Cause No. 53714, Criminal District Court No. 2, Harris County, cumulative with that in Cause No. 53712 has been held to be valid. The result is that relator has a ten year sentence from the Criminal District Court No. 2 of Harris County, Texas, as the result of the three judgments dated October 28, 1943. These run with the Brown County sentences described.

The prison record presented to this court, which has been checked by an assistant attorney general, representing the penitentiary officials, shows that on October 25, 1950 relator had total time to his credit of fifteen years, seven months and three days.' It, therefore, appears that he should be released from further confinement.

It is accordingly ordered, adjudged and decreed that relator be released from further service so far as he is being held by reason of the foregoing enumerated judgments.
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
Elite Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended
March 31, 2009 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”),
I, Mark I, Gittelman, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer 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) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and





(2)
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the
      dates presented and the consolidated result of operations of the Company
      for the periods presented.





Date: 
       June 29, 2009
              /s/ Mark I. GittelmanMark
      I. GittelmanChief
      Financial Officer and Treasurer ofElite
      Pharmaceuticals, Inc.




This
certification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.





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

 This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of

the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its

persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

August 24, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 10-1269

v. (D. Colorado)

JOHNNY SCOTT WARREN,

Defendant - Appellant.

(D.C. No. 10-CV-01231-CMA and

1:07-CR-00354-CMA-1)

ORDER DENYING

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*

Before KELLY, McKAY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

This is a pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2255 appeal. Mr. Warren was convicted on

federal drug and firearm charges and sentenced to 240 months of imprisonment. 

His conviction was affirmed by this court on direct appeal. United States v.

Warren, 566 F.3d 1211 (10th Cir. 2009). Mr. Warren then sought § 2255 relief,

asserting that the district court lacked jurisdiction over his criminal case because

there was no indictment or waiver of indictment and that he received ineffective
-2-

assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to investigate or challenge the

court’s jurisdiction. On June 8, 2010, the district court denied the § 2255 motion,

ruling that an indictment had, in fact, been filed in Mr. Warren’s criminal case. 

The court also denied Mr. Warren’s request for a certificate of appealability. Mr.

Warren now has filed an application for COA with this court. 

Appellant’s application to this court for a certificate of appealability is

DENIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED. The record supports the trial court’s

finding that an indictment was in fact filed on August 22, 2007, and reasonable

jurists would not debate the correctness of the trial court’s findings and order. 

See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Monroe G. McKay

Circuit Judge
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 98-1502NE

_____________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District v. * of Nebraska. * Michael D. Vacanti, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

_____________ Submitted: October 20, 1998

Filed: October 28, 1998

_____________ Before FAGG, BEAM, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM. Michae l D. Vacanti appeals his convictions for conspiracy to distribut e meth amphetamine and money laundering. Vacanti contends the evidence does no t support his convictions because he purchased methamphetamine merely for persona l use. Vacanti’s drug suppliers testified they sold Vacanti several pounds o f methamphetamine over several months, the police found methamphetamine, scales, a handgun, and other drug paraphernalia in Vacanti ’s home, and Vacanti’s cellular phone records showed numerous calls between Vacanti and his suppliers. This evidence goes beyond a mere buyer-seller relationship and shows Vac anti knowingly and intentionally joined an established methamphetamine-distribution conspiracy. See United States v.-2-

Eastman , 149 F.3d 802, 804 (8th Cir . 1998). Similarly, Vacanti’s financial history and his wire transfers of large sums of money to hi s suppliers during the conspiracy support his money laundering convictions. See id. In sum, sufficient evidence exists fro m which a reasonable jury could find Vacanti guilty of all the offenses in the indictment beyond a reas onable doubt. See United States v. McCracken , 110 F.3d 535, 540 (8th Cir. 1997 ). Vacanti also argues the district court incorrectly calculated his sentenc e when the district court attrib uted more than ten kilograms of methamphetamine to him. The district court determined this amount based on th e trial testimony of Vacanti’s drug suppliers. The dis trict court determines the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their te stimony, see United States v. Moss , 138 F.3d 742, 744-45 (8th Cir. 1998), and having reviewed the record, we fin d no error in the district court’s guideline sentence.
We affirm Vacanti’s convictions. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
condensed consolidated financial statements included in the Company's Form 10-Q
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such condensed consolidated
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          58,276
<SECURITIES>                                    54,929
<RECEIVABLES>                                   29,888
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,641
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               145,615
<PP&E>                                          14,689
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,859
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 154,445
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           27,979
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     125,949
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   154,445
<SALES>                                         64,191
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                90,369
<CGS>                                            2,478
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,430
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,306
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  42
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 29,772
<INCOME-TAX>                                    10,711
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    19,061
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.63
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.63
        

</TABLE>
# THE STATE OF TEXAS

M A N D A T E

*********************************************

TO THE 114TH DISTRIC T COURT OF SMITH COU NTY, GREETING:

Before our Court of Appeals for the 12th Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 22nd
day of July, 2015 , the cause u pon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

RACHEL MICHELLE KIRK SEY , Appellant

NO. 12

- 14

- 00349

- CR; Trial Court No. 114

- 0777

- 14

Opinion by Brian Hoyle, Justice.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

“ THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief filed herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the judgment.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED tha t the judgment of the court

below be in all things affirmed , and that this decision be certified to the court below for

observance. ”

WHEREAS, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District of Tex as in this behalf, and in all things have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, THE HONORABLE JAMES T. WORTHEN , Chief Justice of our Court of Appeals for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District, with the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of Tyle r, this the 15 th day of September , 2015.

PAM ESTES , CLERK

By:

_______________________________ Chief Deputy Clerk

# THE STATE OF TEXAS

M A N D A T E

*********************************************

TO THE 114TH DISTRIC T COURT OF SMITH COU NTY, GREETING:

Before our Court of Appeals for the 12th Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 22nd
day of July, 2015 , the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

RACHEL MICHELLE KIRK SEY , Appellant

NO. 12

- 14

- 00354

- CR; Trial Court No. 114

- 0778

- 1 4

Opinion by Brian Hoyle, Justice.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

“ THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief filed herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the judgment.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment of the court

below be in all things affirmed , and that this decision be certified to the court below for

observance. ”

WHE REAS, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District of Texas in this behalf, and in all things have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, THE HONORABLE JAMES T. WORTHEN , Chief Justic e of our Court of Appeals for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District, with the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of Tyler, this the 15 th day of September , 2015.

PAM ESTES , CLERK

By:

_______________________________ Chief Deputy Clerk
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.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

                    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 CFR Part 225) to engage                     *de novo,*                     or to acquire or control voting securities or assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States.                 

                    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at                     *www.ffiec.gov/​nic/​*.                 

Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than November 24, 2000. 

**A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago**                     (Phillip Jackson, Applications Officer) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:                 

*1. Irwin Financial Corporation,*                     Columbus, Indiana; to acquire Irwin Union Bank, F.S.B., Louisville, Kentucky, and thereby engage in                           ( print page 64950)                        operating a savings association, pursuant to § 225.28(b)(4)(ii) of Regulation Y.                 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, October 26, 2000. 

Robert deV. Frierson,

Associate Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc. 00-27958 Filed 10-30-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
##### 



Exhibit 32.01 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 Viseon, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the
quarter ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February
14, 2005 (Report), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below,
hereby certifies pursuant 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to our knowledge: 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: February 14, 2005 /s/ John C. Harris
John C. Harris
Chief Executive Officer Chief Financial Officer Dated: February 14, 2005 /s/ Robert A. Wolf
Robert A. Wolf
Chief Financial Officer
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 200 9-0 819

D CN: SE03552

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS I NFORMATION

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.