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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Financial Statements of Eagle Family Foods, Inc. for the fifty-three week period
ending July 3, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001059761
<NAME> EAGLE FAMILY FOODS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           JUL-3-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                JUL-3-1999
<CASH>                                             972
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,017
<ALLOWANCES>                                       192
<INVENTORY>                                     41,757
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                69,823
<PP&E>                                          39,474
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,676
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 417,286
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           37,991
<BONDS>                                        337,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                      41,794
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   417,286
<SALES>                                        239,730
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               239,730
<CGS>                                          111,026
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  111,026
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               123,046
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              27,798
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (22,140)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (7,655)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (14,485)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (14,485)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION  OF  PERIODIC  FINANCIAL  REPORT
(Pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002)

I,  R.  Llee  Chapman,  Chief  Financial Officer of Apollo Gold Corporation (the
"Company"),  do  hereby  certify  in  accordance  with  U.S. C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002,  that:

     1.  The  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June
     30,  2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
     hereof  (the  "Periodic  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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in
     all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
     the  Company.

Dated:  September  8,  2003


                                 /s/  R.  Llee  Chapman
                       ________________________________________________
                       R.  LLEE  CHAPMAN
                       CHIEF  FINANCIAL  OFFICER


<PAGE>
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-20107 Conference Calendar

__________________
SHIRLEY CLARK LA BLANCHE, Petitioner-Appellant,
versus SHELLY P. HANCOCK, Judge, Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 95-MC-27
- - - - - - - - - - August 22, 1995 Before KING, JOLLY, and WIENER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * IT IS ORDERED that Shirley Clark La Blanche's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and for appointment of counsel are DENIED, because her appeal from the denial of mandamus relief lacks arguable merit and is therefore frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that theNo. 95-20107 -2- appeal is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. La Blanche was named the defendant in four misdemeanor cases filed in a Texas state court. The trial judge and a state appellate court denied her applications for the judge's recusal. La Blanche then sought to achieve that result by filing a petition for mandamus in the United States district court. She now requests leave to proceed IFP upon this appeal from the denial of her said petition. "[A] federal court lacks the general power to issue writs of mandamus to direct state courts and their judicial officers in the performance of their duties where [as in La Blanche's case] mandamus is the only relief sought." Moye v. Clerk, DeKalb County Superior Court , 474 F.2d 1275, 1276 (5th Cir. 1973). In Howell v. Supreme Court of Texas , 885 F.2d 308, 309-13 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied , 496 U.S. 936 (1990), this court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to review Texas Supreme Court justices' refusal to recuse or disqualify themselves in a state court civil proceeding. Accordingly, La Blanche's appeal is frivolous as a matter of law. MOTIONS FOR IFP AND COUNSEL DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.
#### McALISTER v. STATE.

No. 23906.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 28, 1948.

No attorney for appellant.

*886Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of driving a motor vehicle on a public highway while intoxicated and assessed a fine of $50.

The record before us contains neither bills of exception nor a statement of facts. The proceedings appear to be regular. Nothing is presented for our consideration.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-20147 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ISRAEL ADAME, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-95-CR-314-4

-------------------- September 22, 1999 Before JOLLY, JONES and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Israel Adame appeals his sentence after pleading guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute heroin and methamphetamine and distribution of heroin. Adame argues that the district court erred in failing to find that he was a minor participant entitled to a downward adjustment of his offense level under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(c). The Government contends that Adame is not entitled to a role reduction because he was sentenced on the basis of only the two drug transactions in which he actually participated, rather than all the transactionsNo. 99-20147 -2- conducted during the course of the conspiracy. After reviewing the record and the briefs of the parties, we find no error in not treating Adame as a minor participant, as he supplied the heroin for the two drug transactions on which his sentence was based. The fact that he may have been a minor player in the larger overall conspiracy does not entitle him to a mitigating role adjustment. See United States v. Atanda , 60 F.3d 196, 199 (5th Cir. 1995) (holding that "when a sentence is based on activity in which a defendant was actually involved, § 3B1.2 does not require a reduction in the base offense level even though the defendant's activity in a larger conspiracy may have been minor or minimal") (citations omitted). Therefore, the district court did not err, clearly or otherwise, in denying Adame’s request for a mitigating role adjustment. See United States v. Flucas , 99 F.3d 177, 180-81 (5th Cir. 1996). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 216 (Tuesday, November 7, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 66746]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28470]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project Nos. 2731-020 & 2737-002 Vermont]


Central Vermont Public Service Corporation; Notice of 
Availability of Final Environmental Assessment

November 1, 2000.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission's) 
regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office 
of Hydropower Licensing has reviewed the applications for new license 
for the continued operation of the Weybridge and Middlebury Lower 
Hydroelectric Projects located on Otter Creek, in the towns of 
Middlebury and Weybridge, Addison County, Vermont, and has prepared a 
Final Environmental Assessment (FEA) for the projects. In the FEA, the 
Commission's staff has analyzed the potential environmental impacts of 
the projects, evaluated comments filed in response to the issuance of 
the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA), and has concluded that 
approval of the projects, with appropriate environmental protection 
measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly 
affecting the quality of the human environment.
    Copies of the FEA are available for review in the Public Reference 
Branch, Room 2-A, of the Commission's offices at 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426. The FEA may also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm. Please call (202) 208-2222 for 
assistance.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-28470 Filed 11-06-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
EXHIBIT
32.1
 
 
 STATEMENT
OF GREGORY P. JOSEFOWICZ,
 CHAIRMAN,
PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF BORDERS GROUP, INC.
 PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 I,
Gregory P. Josefowicz, certify that the Form 10-K for the year ended January 23,
2005, of Borders Group, Inc. fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d))
and that the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Borders Group, Inc.
 
 Date: May
26, 2005
 
 /s/
GREGORY P. JOSEFOWICZ
 Gregory
P. Josefowicz
 Chairman,
President and Chief Executive Officer
 Borders
Group, Inc.
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Borders Group, Inc. and will be retained by Borders Group, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Case 4:22-cr-00075-Y Document 18 Filed 06/15/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 33
Case 4:22-cr-00075-Y Document 18 Filed 06/15/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 34
Slip-Op. 02-63

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

 

BEFORE: SENIOR JUDGE NICHOLAS TSOUCALAS

________________________________________

:

SKF USA INC., SKF FRANCE S.A., SARMA, :

SKF GmbH, SKF INDUSTRIE S.p.A. and SKF :

SVERIGE AB, :

:

Plaintiffs, :

:

v. : Court No. 98-07-02540

:

UNITED STATES, :

:

Defendant, :

:

THE TORRINGTON COMPANY, :

:

Defendant-Intervenor. :

________________________________________:

JUDGMENT

This Court, having received and reviewed the United States

Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration’s

(“Commerce”) Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court

Remand, SKF USA Inc. v. United States, 2001 Ct. Intl. Trade LEXIS

134, Slip Op. 01-130 (Nov. 15, 2001) (“Remand Results”), comments

of SKF USA Inc., SKF France S.A., Sarma, SKF GmbH, SKF Industrie

S.p.A. and SKF Sverige AB, comments and rebuttal comments of The

Torrington Company and Commerce’s response, holds that Commerce

duly complied with the Court’s remand order, and it is hereby

ORDERED that the Remand Results filed by Commerce on April 1,

2002, are affirmed in their entirety; and it is further
Court No. 98-07-02540 Page 2

ORDERED that since all other issues have been decided, this

case is dismissed.

______________________________

NICHOLAS TSOUCALAS

 SENIOR JUDGE

Dated: July 12, 2002

New York, New York
#### WELTIG v. STATE.

No. 24260.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 9, 1949.

Rehearing Denied March 16, 1949.

*1023No attorney for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of unlawfully and knowingly selling a toilet alcoholic preparation for beverage purposes in a dry area, and his punishment was assessed at a fine of $500 and imprisonment in the county jail for a period of thirty days.

Appellant’^ first complaint relates to the court’s action in overruling his motion to quash the information on the ground that the information failed to set forth the alcoholic content of the toilet preparation, to-wit: Bay Rum, alleged to have been sold by defendant. We do not think that in charging a violation of Sec. 10, Art. 666 — 15, Vernon’s Ann.P.C:, it was necessary to charge the amount of alcohol in the toilet alcoholic preparation since under the statute, the sale of any of the preparations mentioned in Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 of said section of said article for beverage purposes is an offense regardless of how much alcohol it may contain. Therefore, it was not necessary to charge that the alleged toilet alcoholic preparation, to-wit: Bay Rum, contained any specific amount of alcohol.

The state’s testimony shows that appellant sold to W. E. Russel, a liquor control agent, three bottles of Bay Rum for seventy-five cents per bottle, and that at the time of the sale the appellant knew the purchaser was buying it for beverage purposes. The chemist who analyzed it testified that the Bay Rum contained 51% of alcohol by volume. The issue of whether or not he knowingly sold it for beverage purposes was an issue of fact which the jury decided adversely to his contention.

Bills of Exceptions Nos. 7, 8, 9, and 10 have been examined by us and, in our opinion, fail to reflect error.

No reversible error appearing in the record, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
SEPTEMBER TERM, 1722.

#### Richard Snowden’s Lessee *against*Anne Lee.

EJECTMENT for a tract of land called *Burgess’s Choice,*in *Anne Arundel*County, containing 477 acres of land.

At the trial of the cause, the plaintiff gave in evidence a patent of confirmation dated the 10th of *April,*1708, reciting “ That *Benjamin Burgess*had on the 9th of Decern- “ *her,*1700, obtained a special warrant to resurvey a tract “ of land lying in *Anne Arundel*County, called *Burgess’s*“ Choice, originally granted to his father, *William*Burgess, “ for 400 acres; that a certificate was returned whereby the “ said tract contained 347 acres of surplus, over and above “ the original quantity. That the said *Benjamin*had sold “ several parcels,(a) viz. unto *Richard Snowden, John Du-*“ *vail, Joseph Burton, Richard learns, John Jacob*and “ *Charles Cheney;*which said *Richard Snowden*prayed a “ grant of confirmation for the said original quantity and “ surplus, with an exception of such part of the said ori- “ ginal as was sold by the said *Benjamin*to the said *Du-*“ *vail, Benton, Icams, Jacob,*and *Cheney;*that thereby “ he might be invested in fee, not only of such ox-iginal quan- “ tity as was sold to himself by the said *Benjamin,*but “ likewise of the said surplus land, and enabled to have to “ his own use a proportionable pax-t thereof, to the quantity “ by him bought of the first 400 acres, &c. Therefore “ there was granted to the said *Richard Snowden*as well “ the said original quaxxtity, (except such part thereof as “ was sold by the said *Benjamin*to the parties aforesaid,) *49*u*as the whole surplus therein contained, beginning,” See. *si*containing 747 acres more or less.”

The plaintiff also gave in evidence a deed dated 18th *April,*1705, from *Benjamin Burgess*to *Richard Snowden,*“ for all that tract or parcel of land called the lower part *a*of *Burgess’s Choice,*beginning, &c. containing 300 acres *<l*more or less,” &c.

Whereupon the defendant, by his counsel, insisted that the deed of sale from *Burgess*to *Snowden,*and the patent of confirmation to *Snowden,*are not sufficient to prove the title of the lessor of the plaintiff, nor to prove the issue on behalf of the plaintiff, but varies therefrom, and prayed the Justices of the Provincial Court so to direct the Jury. But they refused to give such direction to the Jury.

Lib. P. L. No. 7. fol. 519.

(a)

 As to *splitting*of warrants, see *Kilty’s Landholder’s Assistant,*C. 18. p. 276. c. 6. p. 128.

The cause was afterwards referred to three of the Justices of the Provincial Court, who awarded in favour of the plaintiff, and judgment was thereon rendered at *May*Term, 1724.
Case 2:22-cr-00028-Z-BR Document 149 Filed 08/10/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 409
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

VENUSTIANO CARDOSO, §

#57189-177, '

Movant, '

' CIVIL NO. 3:22-CV-765-K

v. ' (CRIMINAL NO. 3:18-CR-232-K-4)

'

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, '

Respondent. '

JUDGMENT

This action came on for consideration by the Court, and the issues having been 

duly considered and a decision duly rendered,

It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that:

1. The 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence (Doc. 2)

is DENIED with prejudice as barred by the statute of limitations.

2. The Clerk shall transmit a true copy of this Judgment to the movant.

SO ORDERED.

Signed April 13th, 2022.

 

ED KINKEADE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-00765-K Document 6 Filed 04/13/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 34
EXHIBIT 12.4

KOLMAR LABORATORIES, INC.  FIXED CHARGE RATIO COMPUTATION  (GUARANTORS ONLY)

|                                                      |                              | Year Ended December 31, |      
|----------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------- | ----------------------- | -----
|
|
|Income (loss) before taxes                            |                              | $                       | 2,063
|Fixed charges reflected in income (loss) before taxes |                              |                         |      
|                                                      | Interest expense             |                         |      
|                                                      | One third of rental expenses |                         |      
|                                                      |                              |                         |      
|Total fixed charges                                   |                              | $                       | 270  
|                                                      |                              |                         |      
|Income (loss) before taxes plus fixed charges above   |                              | $                       | 2,333
|                                                      |                              |                         |      
|Fixed charge ratio                                    |                              |                         | 8.64x
|                                                      | Fixed charge deficiency      |                         |      

---

QuickLinks
**Exhibit 31**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Robert J. Brilon, certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Duraswitch Industries, Inc.; 2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation;  c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and
5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date:  March 25, 2005 By:  /s/ Robert J. Brilon    Robert J. Brilon    Chief Executive Officer
Case 2:22-cr-00027-Z-BR Document 33 Filed 06/01/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 79