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

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000936734
<NAME> DIAMOND MULTIMEDIA
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-29-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         121,783
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   70,672
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,043
<INVENTORY>                                     64,474
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               284,137
<PP&E>                                          17,152
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,563
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 317,525
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           95,721
<BONDS>                                          5,520
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            34
<OTHER-SE>                                     215,259
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   317,525
<SALES>                                        431,553
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               431,553
<CGS>                                          355,301
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  355,301
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                17,555
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   606
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (1,429)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,606
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,102
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,504
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,504
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.24
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.1 CEO CertificationI, Anthony Nobles, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB of Sutura, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe small business issuer and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to thesmall business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly duringthe period in which this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report basedon such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small businessissuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (thesmall business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likelyto materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small businessissuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the small businessissuer’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: August 21, 2006     /s/ ANTHONY NOBLES   Anthony Nobles   Chief Executive Officer
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**




Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned Officer of Flagship Global Health,
      Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that the
      Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2007
      (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
      15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




/s/
      Philip E. Barak


Philip
      E.
      Barak


Chief
      Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer




Date:
      March 28, 2008
#### JOSEPH FIMIANI *v.*STAR GALLO DISTRIBUTORS, INC., ET AL.

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 15960.

*David D. Chapman,*in support of the petition.

*Richard R. Hine,*assistant attorney general, in opposition.

Decided June 17, 1998

The petition of the defendants Star Gallo Distributors, Inc., and Nationwide Insurance for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 48 Conn. App. 474 (AC 16698), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Under the circumstances of this case, did the Appellate Court properly conclude that, pursuant to General Statutes § 31-349, the second injury fund was liable only for that percentage of the claimant’s total disability attributable to his second injury?”
Order entered July 9 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 14
- 01604
- CR AUSTIN BILL HIXSON, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 416th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 416
- 81668
- 2014



### O RDER Appellant’s brief was originally due on May 6, 2015. This Court has granted appellant two extensions of time to file his brief. To date, appellant has not filed his brief. Accordingly, we ORDER the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and recommendations and determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, whether appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal. See
T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8( b ). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the trial court shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State , 742 S.W .2d 708 (Tex. App.

– Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court isORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which

may include appointment of new counsel.
We ORDER the t rial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order. This appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The

a ppeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are received, whichever is earlier.
/s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6142

JAMES PITTS,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DOLPH DRUCKMAN; WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INC.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. 

Paul W. Grimm, District Judge. (8:17-cv-03456-PWG)

Submitted: June 20, 2019 Decided: June 24, 2019

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Pitt, Appellant Pro Se. Douglas Conrad Meister, Gina Marie Smith, MEYERS, 

RODBELL & ROSENBAUM, PA, Riverdale Park, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

James Pitts appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Pitts v. Druckman, 

No. 8:17-cv-03456-PWG (D. Md. Jan. 4, 2019). We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Jl!TMIS ipppu<s MOTION DENIED COURTOFCRIM.NALAPPEALS pATE: ,_.,, ,,y fl^W^—> ^f JAN212015 BY: (\ , rt J, T^T ^ Abel Acos», Clerk £ HO,33lr-og
-JW it*j 2ia«4'nU«-^J



### 7^ ^^J0^/6^,ffeeeSt, mc/H^Me^
ro ... '4

V-

### iU^uiA-S /IfotiwD^nl li -//ey/€<k^(&tfa/u*& •ft*-' 

### eWt,&k& ef-tiLss £Xiti6&(Cje, /Zvk/j^&lfl) Atof'My/ct 

### -fU< -fa~&&f/W£ •&&#/) f/&t til fat- ~fet*/At*<s, Ofr/Kfa^/h( wmfrdf M*/ ul&J37i*Jfrs dbtfe/Ces 

### ~h A4 ill&Cai AatoI l/oid. /,fe ^iwce^j/^/ed&esi3?-._£>?-££ (b) 'fold3 ..6e64uSe/ITrim Urtl/bA)FU\<£ Sfc



## ?"/jnbf^ ^^p^&^do^j^. 3J^/yj %dPrb> ^S^-M^^z*^^ <Artec/ CsitAJSeJVd^/fjdcA Pa] fe*l6>t05~ <&AtiMfWdU<im) Md^Jdvd ... . . 'dti&fWfai-M v^ ^^/^ /?^dd^dd/^ ddwA 

### QhaAJtoP-/V i^dJdkH Beey £>,odks i/f (dJtdM 

### 37-a //,r ,&3j f?3 dddSH, f, Lsd- 8f/(??&*) Sid~esd/Osdfcd*d /hwdd^dd^ Jm/rfa/Z dz£eco>sd 

## eJdect^es Wfiffalces 01- &>wfsd «t/A/s /^/fSd /H /t d&kt> /wd-ddf-, jdud/^/A%dddm'^^ 

### fd falute, d c&dfel ud /9-Zfcfa/f/y^y&^r,

JdULld^ViS- •0#+e. ^Ad/rtf*

/-/<d- /£- xj^ei y _. . _ _„ .. . . d-d^^ldfd 

### 6oti^&rffl&n>' fiz /^S//Ae^/,'6 &ddd



## US. 3^X Jo? Jsd #ter03j.< Ed- J*\ 098j) d dds)tffn^lA6. dfSdtdfSu-Fd<it?AJCc£'r,d> (/&<*> d^ d> tddedvtd) i*)dsde4s /%dd dd*AddM ©. 

### Ca4d/jp^^o<^d^'&&d^ ffil l/JL 2<fr> WStf-Jm, tttflj U, /<j=yJ.*j£-6° • iT^kdcd^ 

### fcA^^F^A/u^ /Zul^Q^- &t6/Wffcd2i '&/
/A >/a
d) ^
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

Everett McKinley Dirksen United States Courthouse

 Room 2722 - 219 S. Dearborn Street

 Chicago, Illinois 60604

Office of the Clerk

Phone: (312) 435-5850

www.ca7.uscourts.gov

AMENDED ORDER

June 30, 2009

Before

WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge

JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge

No.: 08-2622 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

MARK C. HUFFSTATLER, 

Defendant - Appellant

 

Originating Case Information:

District Court No: 3:07-cr-30167-JPG-DGW-1

Southern District of Illinois

District Judge J. Phil Gilbert 

The following is before the court: MOTION TO AMEND OPINION, which the court

construes as a petition for rehearing, filed on April 21, 2009, by counsel for the appellee.

IT IS ORDERED that this court’s opinion dated April 6, 2009 is VACATED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the court’s mandate that issued on April 28, 2009 is

VACATED and RECALLED.

form name: c7_Order_3J (form ID: 177)
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3409 

To amend the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 

to require that any expansion of a national wildlife refuge must be 

expressly authorized by statute. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 30, 2013 

Mr. FINCHER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 to require that any expansion of a 

national wildlife refuge must be expressly authorized by 

statute. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Wildlife Ref5 uge Expansion Limitation Act of 2013’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3409 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON EXPANSION OF NATIONAL WILD2 LIFE REFUGES. 

3 Section 4(a) of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

4 Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd(a)) is 

5 amended by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(6) The Secretary may not expand any national 

7 wildlife refuge except as expressly authorized by a law en8 acted after January 3, 2013.’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
1

The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, Chief Judge, United States District

Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3377

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern 

* District of Arkansas.

Darrell Coleman, *

* [PUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 14, 2005

Filed: April 25, 2005

___________

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit

Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Darrell Coleman appeals the revocation by the district court1

 of his term of

supervised release and the sentence of nine months that the court imposed upon him

for violating the conditions of his release. We affirm.

Mr. Coleman challenges the district court's order only on constitutional

grounds, arguing that the logic of Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004),
-2-

renders the United States Sentencing Guidelines unconstitutional as well as his ninemonth sentence. Although the Supreme Court did hold the Sentencing Reform Act

unconstitutional after the appellant filed his brief, United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct.

738, 758, 764-65 (2005), the Court did not discard the guidelines wholesale. Instead,

it excised from the Sentencing Reform Act only those provisions that made

application of the sentencing guidelines mandatory and thus were contrary to the sixth

amendment. Id. at 764. Among the remaining provisions of the Sentencing Reform

Act that the Court recognized as constitutionally valid was the supervised release

statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3583. Id.

Indeed, the advisory sentencing guidelines scheme that Booker creates, id. at

750, 764-66, is precisely what prevailed before Booker with respect to fixing

penalties for violating the kind of release conditions that Mr. Coleman violated by not

obtaining employment. In such circumstances, § 3583 leaves to the discretion of the

district judge the decision to revoke a term of supervised release and impose

imprisonment, provided the judge takes into account the relevant considerations set

out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3); see also U.S.S.G. ch. 7,

pt. A(1), A(2)(b), A(3)(a). Therefore Mr. Coleman's constitutional challenge fails.

Affirmed.

______________________________
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 the Treasury Customs Service [T.D. 00-77]
 AGENCY: U.S. Customs Service, Department of the Treasury.
 ACTION: Customs Broker License Cancellations. I, as Assistant Commissioner, Office Field Operations, pursuant to Section 641 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1641), and the Customs Regulations (19 CFR 111), hereby cancel the following Customs broker's licenses without prejudice based on the authority as annotated: Name
Port
License No.
AuthorityUnited Motor Freight, Inc
Seattle
14362
19 CFR 111.51(a).ClearFreight Corporation
San Francisco
06174
19 CFR 111.51(a).
 Dated: October 25, 2000. Bonni G. Tischler, Assistant Commissioner, Office of Field Operations.


[FR Doc. 00-27837 Filed 10-30-00; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4820-02-P
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANTTO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Brian R. Ervine,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge, theAnnual Report of Evolving Systems, Inc. on Form 10-K for the annualperiod ended December 31, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the informationcontained in such Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects thefinancial condition and results of operations of Evolving Systems, Inc.

 
| /s/ Brian R. Ervine                                   |   |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|                                                  |
| Brian R. Ervine                                       |
| Executive Vice President  and Chief Financial Officer |
| March 12, 2008                                   |

 

This certificationis furnished with this Annual Report on Form 10-K pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent requiredby such Act, be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). Such certification willnot be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under theSecurities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extentthat we specifically incorporate it by reference.

 

----
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7778
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DURWOOD WAYNE STONE, a/k/a Larue Godwin, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Bryson City. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (CR-91-106) Submitted: January 12, 1999 Decided: March 19, 1999 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Durwood Wayne Stone, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Lee Whisler, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Durwood Stone appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to amend his presentence investigation report. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Stone , No. CR-91-106 (W.D.N.C. Nov. 16, 1998). 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
exv10wb



 






Exhibit 10.B




SUMMARY OF COMPENSATION OF

NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS OF VIAD CORP

AS OF FEBRUARY 23, 2006




	 	 	 	 	 
	Board of Directors
	 	 	 	 
	Annual Retainer
	 	$	30,000
	Meeting Attendance Fee
	 	$	1,600
	Restricted Stock (Annual Grant)1
	 	2,000 shares
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Audit Committee
	 	 	 	 
	Meeting Attendance Fee
	 	$	1,500
	Committee Chairman Annual Retainer
	 	$	10,000
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee
	 	 	 	 
	Meeting Attendance Fee
	 	$	1,500
	Committee Chairman Annual Retainer
	 	$	5,000
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Human Resources Committee
	 	 	 	 
	Meeting Attendance Fee
	 	$	1,500
	Committee Chairman Annual Retainer
	 	$	5,000
	 
	 	 	 	 
	Additional Benefits2
	 	 	 	 








 




			
	1	 	The annual grant occurs in February of each year and vests 100% three years from the
date of the grant. Upon retirement from the Board, a director who has reached the age of 60
will receive full ownership of the restricted stock, provided the retirement occurs at least
six months after the date of the grant. Directors under the age of 60, upon retirement, will
receive shares on a pro rata basis, calculated based on the percentage of time the individual
served as a director during the three-year vesting period of the restricted stock.
	 
	2	 	Non-employee directors may participate in the Directors’ Matching Gift Program, which
provides for corporate matching of charitable contributions made by non-employee directors, on
a dollar-for-dollar basis, up to an aggregate maximum of $5,000 per year to qualified
non-profit organizations having tax exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal
Revenue Code. Viad Corp also provides non-employee directors with accidental death and
dismemberment insurance benefits of $300,000 and travel accident insurance benefits of
$300,000 when they are traveling on corporate business.
#### BANKS et al. v. CORDER.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Nov. 9, 1951.

W. E. Faulkner and Faulkner & Faulkner, Hazard, for appellants.

Don A. Ward, Hazard, for appellee.

CAMMACK, Chief Justice.

This is another false arrest case from Perry County. Here, as in the cases of Turner v. Smith, 313 Ky. 635, 232 S.W.2d 1006, and Turner v. Boleyn, Ky., 243 S.W.2d 482, the Standard Accident Insurance Company was made a party defendant. The Insurance Company admitted its suretyship and said that its liability would depend solely on the facts developed in connection with the issues raised between the plaintiff and the officer. In both of the cases mentioned we said it was reversible error to comment upon the fact that the Insurance Company had been made a party defendant. The case of Logan v. Porter, 314 Ky. 552, 236 S.W.2d 478, dealt with a similar situation.

For the reasons given the judgment is reversed, with directions to set it aside, and for proceedings consistent with this opinion.