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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                      37,704,000
<SECURITIES>                                13,290,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               22,234,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 2,073,000
<INVENTORY>                                  5,819,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            77,935,000
<PP&E>                                      11,043,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               7,731,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              83,288,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,349,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  76,929,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                83,288,000
<SALES>                                     41,113,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            41,113,000
<CGS>                                       17,168,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               42,327,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               607,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         (1,836,000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   144,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (129,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (129,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.01)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)
<FN>
<F1>For Purposes of this Exhibit, Primary Means Basic.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE 1998 BORDERS GROUP, INC.
                                STOCK OPTION PLAN



     Section 3 of the Borders Group, Inc. 1998 Stock Option Plan (the "Plan") is
hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows, effective as of September 30,
1999:

          "3.  Shares.  The number of Shares  which shall be  reserved  for
     issuance  under  the Plan  shall  not  exceed  4,000,000,  subject  to
     adjustment  in  accordance  with the  provisions  of Section 6 hereof.
     Shares  to be  optioned  or  issued  under  the  Plan  may  be  either
     authorized and unissued  shares or issued shares which shall have been
     reacquired by the Company. In the event that any outstanding option or
     portion thereof expires or is cancelled, surrendered or terminated for
     any reason,  the Shares  allocable to the unexercised  portion of such
     option  may again be  subjected  to an  option or be issued  under the
     Plan."

     Except as herein amended, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**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 Coinstar, Inc. (the“***Company***”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “***Form 10-Q***”), I, Brian V. Turner, Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

(1) The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and 

(2) The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany. 

Dated: August 9, 2007
# Official Journal L 95/2020

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 95 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6330 March 2020 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 95

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6330 March 2020

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/453 of 27 March 2020 on the harmonised standards for railway products drafted in support of Directive 2008/57/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the interoperability of the rail system within the Community | 1 |
| | * | Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/454 of 27 March 2020 amending the Annex to Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/47 on protective measures in relation to highly pathogenic avian influenza of subtype H5N8 in certain Member States
  (notified under document C(2020) 2013)

   (
  1
  ) | 8 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

DECISIONS

*

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/453 of 27 March 2020 on the harmonised standards for railway products drafted in support of Directive 2008/57/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the interoperability of the rail system within the Community

1

*

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/454 of 27 March 2020 amending the Annex to Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/47 on protective measures in relation to highly pathogenic avian influenza of subtype H5N8 in certain Member States
  (notified under document C(2020) 2013)

   (
  1
  )

(notified under document C(2020) 2013)

1

8

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 12 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 12

    To designate February 1993 as ``National Black History Month''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 5, 1993

  Mrs. Collins of Illinois introduced the following joint resolution; 
  which was referred to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    To designate February 1993 as ``National Black History Month''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That February 1993 is 
designated as ``National Black History Month'', and the President of 
the United States is authorized and requested to issue a proclamation 
calling upon the people of the United States to observe such month with 
appropriate ceremonies and activities.

                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT TECK GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. CROWN CENTRAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, No. 99-1428 Defendant-Appellee, and CROWN STATIONS, INCORPORATED, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-966-A) Submitted: September 8, 1999 Decided: October 25, 1999 Before ERVIN* and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ *Judge Ervin was assigned to the panel in this case but died prior to the time the decision was filed. The decision is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).COUNSELTeck General Partnership, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Patrick McGovern, KELLEY, DRYE & WARREN, L.L.P., Washington, D.C.; Robert R. Vieth, MCGUIRE, WOODS, BATTLE & BOOTHE, L.L.P., McLean, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: Teck General Partnership ("Teck") appeals from the district court's order awarding attorneys' fees and costs to Crown Central PetroleumCorporation ("Crown") pursuant to Crown's motion under the Virginia Oil Spill Act, Va. Code Ann. § 62.1-44.34:18.F (Michie 1998) (the "Act"). Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. We find that the district court properly found Crown to be the prevailing party in this action. We further find that the district court assessed the fees and costs against Teck pursuant to the Act, and not because of Teck's failure to meet court-imposed deadlines, and therefore find that the award against Teck, rather than its attorney, was proper. Finally, Teck asks this Court to return the case to the district court for trial against all of Crown's entities that are appropriate defendants, and allow the trial to continue without "sanctions." In essence, Teck seeks to appeal from the district court's order of December 18, 1998, dismissing with prejudice the case on Teck's motion. Teck failed to note a timely appeal from this order dismissing the underlying action, thus depriving this Court of jurisdiction to review this claim. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1); Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978).
2Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order awarding attorneys' fees and costs, and dismiss for lack of jurisdiction the appealof the dismissal of the underlying action. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presentedin the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART 3
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 6- 30 59

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.
Co nr ad Eli ot Dick so n
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - F ay et te vi ll e

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Feb ru ary 6, 2 01 7 Fi le d: Feb ru ary 9, 2 01 7 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re WOL LMAN, MURPHY, an d GRUENDER, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.Co nr ad Dick so n ap pe al s aft er th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed hi s p et it io n fo r a wri t 1 of erro r co ram no bi s, in whi ch he so ug ht to va cat e a pr io r co nv ic ti on fo r whi ch he ha d

se rv ed hi s se nt en ce. His pe ti ti on ass ert ed an in effe ct iv e-as si st an ce cl ai m an d o th er cl ai m s th at were es se nt ia ll y co ns id ered an d res ol ve d in a pr io r 2 8 U

. S

. C. § 22 55

m ot io n. Fo ll owi ng care fu l de no vo rev ie w, w e co nc lu de th at th e di st ric t co ur t pr op erl y de ni ed Dick so n’s pe ti ti on

. Se e Uni te d St at es v. Ca mac ho -Bor de s , 94 F.3 d 11 68 , 11 73 ( 8 th Ci r. 19 96 ) (rev ie win g de no vo di st ric t co ur t’s le ga l co nc lu si on s in de nyin g co ram no bi s rel ie f); se e al so Ch ai de z v. Uni te d St at es , 13 3 S.Ct

. 11 03 , 11 08 & n.5 (2 01 3) (d is cu ss in g th e co nt ou rs of th e Si xt h Am en dm en t rig ht to co un se l an d la be l i ng se x- of

fen de r reg is tra ti on as on e of th e “ co ll at eral co ns eq ue nc es ” of a
co nv ic ti on ); Geo rg e v. Bl a c k , 73 2 F.2 d 10 8, 11 0 (8 th Ci r. 19 84 ) (d et erm in in g th at

accu se d ne ed on ly be in fo rm ed o f d i r e c t c on se qu en ces of gu il ty pl ea); Azz on e v. Uni te d St at es , 34 1 F.2 d 41 7, 41 8- 19 (8 th C i r

. 19 65 ) (p er cu ria m ) (n ot in g th at , if

se nt en ce ha s be en se rv ed , i nd iv id ua l m ay fil e p et it io n fo r writ of erro r co ram no bi s in at te m pt to va cat e pr io r co nv ic ti on , whi le al so ho ld in g th at a pe ti ti on er is no t

en ti tl ed to rev ie w of is su es th at w e re co ns id ered an d res ol ve d in a pr io r § 22 55

m ot io n) . Accor di ng ly, we affi rm

. Se e 8t h C ir. R . 47 B.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

The Hon or ab le Tim ot hy L. Bro ok s, Uni te d St at e s D i s tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1 W es te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s, pa rti al ly ad op ti ng th e rep or t an d reco m m en da ti on s of th e Hon or ab le Erin L. Set se r, Uni te d St at es Mag is tra te Ju dg e fo r th e W es te rn Dis tri ct of Arka ns as

. -2

-
#### HALEY v. STATE.

No. 22454.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 31, 1943.

Rehearing Denied May 5, 1943.

Alex P. Pope, of Tyler, for appellant.

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

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was charged with a violation of the local option laws of Smith County, and upon a trial was awarded a punishment of six months in jail.

There is no statement of facts found in the record, and but one bill of exceptions.

The lone bill complains of the failure of, the trial court to grant a motion for a continuance therein based upon the absence of *769one Hubert Curbo, who it is alleged would testify as to an alibi for appellant.

The trial court’s qualification to such bill shows that the witness Curbo was also charged with a violation of the law in the same court, and upon the calling of the Curbo case prior to this trial, Curbo failed to appear and his bond was finally forfeited. It seems that he was, therefore, at the time of the filing of this motion a fugitive. Again, it is further shown that no subpoena was issued in this cause, requesting the presence of Curbo. Under the circumstances we do not think any error was shown in the court’s overruling such motion.

The judgment is affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 217 (Wednesday, November 8, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 67020]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28654]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Notice of Permits Issued Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 
1978

AGENCY: National Science Foundation.

ACTION:  Notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation of 
1978, Public Law 95-541.

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

SUMMARY: The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish 
notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. 
This is the required notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nadene G. Kennedy, Permit Office, 
Office of Polar Programs, Rm. 755, National Science Foundation, 4201 
Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 3, 2000, the National Science 
Foundation published notice in the Federal Register of a waste 
management permit application received. The permit was issued on 
October 27, 2000 to: The Bancroft Arenesen Expedition, Permit No. 2001 
WM-001.

Nadene G. Kennedy,
Permit Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-28654 Filed 11-7-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
#### Ex parte FREED.

No. 26252.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 11, 1953.

No attorney for appellant.

William H. Scott, Criminal Dist. Atty. and King C. Haynie, Asst. Crim. Dist. Atty., Houston, George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BELCHER, Commissioner.

Appellant was arrested upon the warrant of the Governor of this State, issued upon the requisition of the Governor of the State of Florida, where he stood charged by affidavit with the offense of larceny of a motor vehicle. He sought his discharge from such arrest by writ of habeas corpus which, after hearing, was denied. The appeal is from the order of the trial court.

The record is before this Court without a statement of facts or bills of exception. All proceedings appear regular in every respect, therefore nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
#### DURDEN v. PATTERSON et al.

No. 11204.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Galveston.

Dec. 19, 1940.

*297A. L. Pierson, Harold Kahn, and J. R. Hill, all of Houston, for relator.

Carlos B. Masterson, of Angleton, for respondents.

GRAVES, Justice.

The relator herein, an administratrix de bonis non of the estate of Jacob Kiehl-bauch, deceased, sued the respondents, Miss Jimmie Patterson and Sul Ross Harrington, as' district clerk and court reporter, respectively, of the Twenty-Third District Court of Brazoria County, alone, in an original application to this court for a writ of mandamus to compel them to prepare and furnish her a requested transcript and statement of facts, as being in compliance with their official duties to her under R.S. Articles 2072 and 2276, without payment or without security therefor, in cause No. 27,-679, in such district court, styled “The Estate of Jacob Kiehlbauch, deceased, by ad-ministratrix, d. b. n., Bernice Kiehlbauch Durden v. Mrs. Kittie Nash Groce et al.”

It is also made to appear that that suit was one between relator, as plaintiff and cross-defendant, against Mrs. Kittie Nash Groce and the Federal Land Bank of Houston, as defendants and cross-plaintiffs, in trespass to try title to 283 acres of land located in Brazoria County, Texas, wherein the district court of that county, on the 16th day of September, 1940, rendered a judgment for such land adverse to this relator in both her capacities therein, and in favor of such defendants and cross-plaintiffs therein, to wit, Mrs. Kittie Nash Groce and the Federal Land Bank of Houston, whereupon the relator excepted to that judgment and gave notice of appeal therefrom; it further appears that the transcript and statement of facts now made the subject matter of this application for mandamus, constitute the means and bases by which this relator is seeking to have officially shown the proceedings had upon that trial.

Under the facts stated, it is obvious that the adverse parties to the relator in such cause No. 27,679 in the Brazoria County district court are vitally interested in the controversy to which such application for mandamus relates — that is, the proper procurement, filing, and fixing of responsibility among those parties for the transcript and statement of facts, upon which any appeal therein is to be determined, and that each of them is a necessary party to this proceeding in mandamus; wherefore, since neither one of such parties is either named in this application, or brought before this court, it becomes plain that it is fatally defective for the want of both of them as necessary parties thereto.

The petition will accordingly be dismissed, without prejudice to any right the relator may have to again present the same to this court, with all necessary parties included. H. M. Cohen Lumber & Bldg. Co. v. McCalla, Judge, Tex.Civ.App., 142 S.W.2d 685; Kelly v. Lobit, Tex.Civ.App., 134 S.W.2d 420, and cited authorities.

Application dismissed without prejudice.
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier:** 201 3

- NM

- 052

- AD

**Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate t o include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 01795**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name 3**  **Description** x 

### 01795\01795_Checklist.XLS EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook



### 01795\01795_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist x 

### 01795\01795_Part A.XLS Plant submitted survey file x 

### 01795\01795_Part B.XLS Plant submitted survey file x 

### 01795\01795_Part C.XLS Plant submitted survey file x 

### 01795\01795_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 01795\01795_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file



### 01795\Certification Statement Plant ID_01795.pdf Plant certification statement x 

### 01795\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION\01795_Calc Sheet.doc ERG Technical Reviewer Notes



### x 01795\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION\01795_Map.BMP Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### 01795\SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION\01795_WaterBalance.BMP Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket. 3No hardcopy log is included for this plant as no hardcopy materials were received.
Case 2:22-cr-00044-Z-BR Document 57 Filed 09/01/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 151
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 Annual Report of Integrated Data Corp (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2006, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Abe Carmel, 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 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 Integrated Data Corp.


Date:  November 2, 2007        By:  /s/ Abe Carmel
                                    --------------
                                    Abe Carmel
                                    Chief Executive Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Integrated Data Corp. and
will be retained by Integrated Data Corp. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.