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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           3,932
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   67,794
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,020)
<INVENTORY>                                     18,806
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                92,202
<PP&E>                                         130,432
<DEPRECIATION>                                (27,562)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 234,251
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           61,117
<BONDS>                                        128,818
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            9,340
<PREFERRED>                                     12,837
<COMMON>                                        21,501
<OTHER-SE>                                    (14,967)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   234,251
<SALES>                                        297,586
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               297,586
<CGS>                                          240,878
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  287,199
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   440
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,466
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,616)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,226)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,390)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,464)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 on Form 10-Q of SkillSoft Public Limited
Company (the "Company") for the period ended April 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, Charles E. Moran, Chief Executive Officer of the Company hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.

Dated: June 9, 2004

                                               /s/ Charles E. Moran
                                               --------------------
                                               Charles E. Moran
                                               Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 99.2
                                                                    ------------

                            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 Quarterly Report of Western Power & Equipment Corp.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Mark J. Wright, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:


     (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 financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


/s/ Mark J. Wright
-------------------------
Chief Financial Officer

July 2, 2003
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7412

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CARSON DARRELL RODGERS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District

Judge. (CR-02-374; CA-04-498-1)

Submitted: February 16, 2005 Decided: March 8, 2005

Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carson Darrell Rodgers, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Francis Joseph,

Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Carson Darrell Rodgers appeals from a district court

order adopting the magistrate judge’s order to deny Rodgers leave

to exceed that court’s twenty-page limit on his brief in support of

his § 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. We dismiss the appeal for

lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This

court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28

U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial

Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is

neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral

order. 

We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### DORSEY v. STATE.

No. 25165.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 21, 1951.

Rehearing Denied April 11, 1951.

No attorney for appellant.

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

MORRISON, Judge.

The appeal is from, a conviction for the offense of forgery, with a sentence of two years in the penitentiary.

The proceedings appear regular in every respect. The record is before the Court without a statement of facts or bill of exception. No question is presented for our consideration.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

September 9, 2021

No. 04

- 21

- 00281

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF Z.M.M., A CHILD,

From the 25th Judicial District Court

, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 20

- 0370

- CV

- A Honorable Thomas Nathaniel Stuckey , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant’s appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 368 U.S. 738 (1967). After reviewing the brief, we find the brief is insufficient in light of our decision in In re N.F.M.
, 582 S.W.3d 539 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio Dec. 19, 2018, no pet.) . Specifically, while the brief concludes there are no arguable grounds to challenge the tri al court’s findings on a predicate ground for termination, it does not contain any analysis showing whether counsel considered if there are a rguable grounds to challenge the trial court’s finding that termination is in the best interest of the child. See T EX

. F AM

. C ODE A NN

. § 161.001 (trial court may order termination of the parent

- child relationship only if it finds by clear and convincing evidence both a predicate ground for termination and that termination is in the best interest of the child); In re J.F .C. , 96 S.W.3d 256, 295 (Tex. 2002) (same).

Accordingly, we ORDER appointed counsel’s Anders brief stricken and that the brief be redrawn. 1 We ORDER the redrawn brief to be filed in this court by September 29, 2021 . We further ORDER appointed counsel to notify appellant that the Anders brief has been stricken, that there is no current deadline for filing a pro se brief, and to provide this court with proof that he has notified appellant as ordered.

1 We advise counsel to pay particular attention to the necessary components of an Anders brief as set out in our decision in N.F.M. See 582 S.W.3d at 541

– 44. Appointed counsel is instructed that pursuant to our decision in N.F.M. , conclusory state ments that the appeal is frivolous are inadequate; rather, appointed counsel must explain why and how he reached h is conclusion that the appeal is frivolous. See Earle v. Ratliff , 998 S.W.2d 882, 890 (Tex. 1999) (holding statement is conclusory if basis f or statement is unexplained); CA Partners v. Spears , 274 S.W.3d 51, 63 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, pet. denied) (holding that conclusory statement is one that does not provide underlying facts to support conclusion)._________________________________ Beth Watkins , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 9th day of September, 2021

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 237 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 237

Authorizing the use of the Capitol grounds for the 13th annual National 
                   Peace Officers' Memorial Service.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 24, 1994

Mr. Traficant submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
      referred to the Committee on Public Works and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Authorizing the use of the Capitol grounds for the 13th annual National 
                   Peace Officers' Memorial Service.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 

SECTION 1. USE OF CAPITOL GROUNDS FOR NATIONAL PEACE OFFICERS' MEMORIAL 
              SERVICE.

    The National Fraternal Order of Police and its auxiliary shall be 
permitted to sponsor a public event, the 13th annual National Peace 
Officers' Memorial Service, on the Capitol grounds on May 15, 1994, or 
on such other date as the Speaker of the House of Representatives and 
the President pro tempore of the Senate may jointly designate, in order 
to honor the 151 law enforcement officers who died in the line of duty 
during 1993.

SEC. 2. TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

    (a) In General.--The event authorized to be conducted on the 
Capitol grounds under section 1 shall be free of admission charge to 
the public and arranged not to interfere with the needs of Congress, 
under conditions to be prescribed by the Architect of the Capitol and 
the Capitol Police Board.
    (b) Expenses and Liabilities.--The National Fraternal Order of 
Police and its auxiliary shall assume full responsibility for all 
expenses and liabilities incident to all activities associated with the 
event.

SEC. 3. EVENT PREPARATIONS.

    (a) Structures and Equipment.--Subject to the approval of the 
Architect of the Capitol, the National Fraternal Order of Police and 
its auxiliary are authorized to erect upon the Capitol grounds such 
stage, sound amplification devices, and other related structures and 
equipment, as may be required for the event authorized to be conducted 
on the Capitol grounds under section 1.
    (b) Additional Arrangements.--The Architect of the Capitol and the 
Capitol Police Board are authorized to make any such additional 
arrangements as may be required to carry out the event.

                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

LUBBOCKDTVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

NO. 5:22-CR-036-01-H

THOMAS ANTHONYYBARRA,

Defendant.

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF TIIE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

After reviewing all relevant matters of record, including the Notice Regarding Entry

of a Plea of Guilty, the Consent of the Defendant, and the Report and Recommendation

Conceming Plea ol Guilty of the United States Magistrate Judge, and no objections thereto

having been filed within fourteen (14) days of service in accordance with 28 U.S.C.

$ 636OXl), the undersigrred District Judge is of the opinion that the Report and

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge conceming the Plea of Guilty is corect, and it is

hereby accepted by the Court. Accordingly, the Court accepts the plea of guilty and

Defendant is hereby adjudged guilty

Sentence will be imposed in accordance with the Court's schedtrling order.

SO ORDERED.

oatedtdy f, ,zozz.

JAMES SLEYHENDRIX

STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:22-cr-00036-H-BQ Document 34 Filed 07/18/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 84
#### DRAKE v. STATE.

No. 21974.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 4, 1942.

J. W. McCullough, of McKinney, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

Theft of chickens is the offense. The penalty assessed is confinement in the county jail for a term of 10 days.

The indictment appears regular. The record is before us without bills of exception or a statement of facts. Appellant •entered a plea of guilty to the offense •charge, and waived a jury upon the trial.

The judgment 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.
#### BALL CREEK COAL CO. v. DANIEL et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Nov. 7, 1952.

T. E. Moore, Jr., Hazard, for appellant.

W. W. Reeves, Hazard, for appellees.

R. G. Rader, pro se.

WADDILL, Commissioner.

'Ball Creek Coal Company, appellant herein, brought this suit to enforce a lien on a Sullivan Shortwall coal cutting machine which appellees, Daniel and Grigsby, had purchased from appellant under a conditional sales agreement, and for a judgment for the balance due thereon. Appellant was adjudged a lien for $1,400 with interest, representing the unpaid balance due, and the court directed a Special Commissioner to sell the machine on the first day of the July, 1950, term off the Perry Circuit Court.

The Special Commissioner duly advertised and conducted the sale as ordered by the court, but the highest bidder was unable to execute a satisfactory bond. The ordered sale was not consummated and the Commissioner undertook to hold a second sale without further order of the court on the 15th of December, 1950. The machine was sold for costs on the second sale to ap-pellee, Rader. Exceptions to this sale were overruled and judgment was entered approving the sale. From this action of the court an appeal is prosecuted.

The appellant claims that the amount received was inadequate. Inadequacy of price alone is not sufficient ground for setting aside a judicial sale. Melton v. Tipton, 264 Ky. 196, 94 S.W.2d 350.

*680 The Special Commissioner was a mere ministerial agent of the court, with no power to act at variance with the directions in the judgment. He had no power to conduct a sale on a different date from that directed by the court in the judgment. It was the Commissioner’s duty to report no sale and apply to the court for further directions. The purported second sale was a nullity. Owens v. Witmer C.o., 275 Ky. 439, 121 S.W.2d 966; Barnett v. Bank of Commerce, 264 Ky. 179, 94 S.W.2d 334; Dallas v. Gardner, 207 Ky. 93, 268 S.W. 847; Burks’ Adm’r v. Lane Lumber Co., 28 K.L.R. 545, 89 S.W. 686; Abell v. Duparcy, 1 Ky. Opinion 40.

Therefore, the'judgment is reversed insofar as it denied appellant’s motion tO' set aside the order approving the sale, with directions to the circuit court to order a new sale.
EXHIBIT 99.2

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 Entrust Financial Services, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31,  2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof  (the "Report'). I, David A. Hite, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 USC ss. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,  that to the best of my knowledge
and belief:

| | (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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | By:/s/ David A. Hite,
      David A. Hite, Chief Financial Officer
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated:
APRIL 14, 2003
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7535

JAMES A. FULLARD, Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus PARRIS N. GLENDENNING, Governor; MARTAIN O'MALLEY; PATRICIA C. JESSAMY, District Attorney; ALLEN L. SCHWAIT; RONALD WALKER, Defense Attorney; JAMES V. PEGUESE, Warden, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA-03-1979-CCB) Submitted: January 29, 2004 Decided: February 6, 2004 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James A. Fullard, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* This date was determined giving Fullard the benefit of the Supreme Court’s decision in Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 (1988). - 2 - PER CURIAM: James A. Fullard seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) action. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Dir. Dep’t of Corr. , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). Fullard was given an opportunity to provide grounds for extending the appeal period, under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A), but failed to do so. The district court’s order was entered on the docket on July 25, 2003. The notice of appeal was filed on September 23, 2003. * Because Fullard failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the- 3 - materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Case 2:22-cv-00065-Z-BR Document 6 Filed 06/06/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 16
Case 2:22-cv-00065-Z-BR Document 6 Filed 06/06/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 17
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 Western Power & Equipment Corp. &
Subsidiary (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended January 31, 2007 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, C.Dean McLain, 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 to the best of my 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.


                                       /s/ C. Dean McLain
                                       --------------------------
                                       Name: C.Dean McLain
                                       President and Chief Executive Officer
                                       Date: March 19, 2007




     A signed original of the written statements required by Section 906 has
been provided to Western Power & Equipment Corp. & Subsidiary and will be
retained by Western Power & Equipment Corp. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.