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



<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>

THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
ACCOMPANYING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>


<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                            Jun-30-1999
<CASH>                                   $2,251,247
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                               494,430
<ALLOWANCES>                                150,000
<INVENTORY>                                  12,444
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          2,758,121
<PP&E>                                    1,305,358
<DEPRECIATION>                             (734,125)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            3,347,643
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       608,219
<BONDS>                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                  8,086,642
<OTHER-SE>                               (6,406,166)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              3,347,643
<SALES>                                     803,109
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            803,109
<CGS>                                       106,292
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               106,292
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            845,508
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            6,562
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (112,386)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (113,186)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                               (113,186)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   .00



</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION





The undersigned, Thomas C. Shields, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of ANADIGICS, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies that the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 3, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








Dated: July 29, 2010




By:
/s/ Thomas C. ShieldsThomas C. ShieldsExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer




This certification shall not be deemed to be “filed” for the purpose of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and will not be incorporated by reference into any registration statement filed under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, unless specifically identified therein as being incorporated by reference.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to ANADIGICS, Inc. and will be retained by ANADIGICS, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
SCWC-17-0000351

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

STATE OF HAWAI#I,

Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellant,

vs.

GAREN B. WINHAM, also known as GAREN B.M. WINHAM, GAREN B.

WINWARD, GAREN BERNICE MAILE WINHAM,

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellee.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-17-0000351; CR. NO. 16-1-1356)

ORDER DISMISSING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

It appearing that the judgment on appeal in the abovereferenced matter not having been filed by the Intermediate Court

of Appeals at the time the application for writ of certiorari was

filed, see Hawai#i Revised Statutes § 602-59(a) (Supp. 2016); see

also Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 36(b)(1)

(2016),

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s application for

writ of certiorari, filed on May 21, 2019, is dismissed without

prejudice to re-filing the application pursuant to HRAP Rule

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-17-0000351

24-MAY-2019

09:56 AM
40.1(a) (2017). (“The application shall be filed within thirty

days after the filing of the Intermediate Court of Appeals’

judgment on appeal or dismissal order, unless the time for filing

the application is extended in accordance with this rule.”).

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, May 24, 2019.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

2
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6882
In Re: MARC PIERRE HALL, Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-95-5) Submitted: December 16, 1999 Decided: December 27, 1999Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marc Pierre Hall, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Marc Pierre Hall has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus from this court seeking to have this court order Respondent Judge Payne to respond to a Bureau of Prisons (BOP) inquiry regarding Hall’s judgment and conviction order and pre-sentence investigation report. Hall has not proven, and the district court has no record, that the BOP made such an inquiry. However, Hall’s motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999) is currently pending with the Respondent judge. That case has been proceeding in a timely manner and does not require intervention by this court.Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary circumstances. See Kerr v. United States Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). Mandamus relief is only available when there are no other means by which the relief sought could be granted, see In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987), and may not be used as a substitute for appeal. See In re Catawba Indian Tribe , 973 F.2d 1133, 1135 (4th Cir. 1992). The party seeking mandamus relief carries the heavy burden of showing that he has “no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires” and that his entitlement to such relief is “clear and indisputable.” Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc. , 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980). Hall has not made such a showing. Accordingly, we deny Hall’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and his petition for mandamus relief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade-3 quately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

MARCEL MALACHOWSKI, )

ID # 15287-052, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

NFN RIVERS, )

)

Respondent. ) Civil Action No. 3:22-CV-1156-C-BT

ORDER

Before the Court are the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United

States Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 23] therein advising the Court that Petitioner’s Motion to

Supplement Under Rule 59(e) [ECF No. 19] should be denied. Petitioner failed to timely file any

objections.1

The Court conducts a de novo review of those portions of the Magistrate Judge’s report or

specified proposed findings or recommendations to which a timely objection is made. 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C). Portions of the report or proposed findings or recommendations that are not the

subject of a timely objection will be accepted by the Court unless they are clearly erroneous or

contrary to law. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989).

1The fourteen-day period for filing objections has passed. Due to Petitioner’s incarceration, the

Court has waited an additional period of several days to allow time for any reasonable delays Petitioner

may face in utilizing the prison mail system. Petitioner failed to keep his contact information current and

the docket reflects that a copy of the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation [ECF No. 23] was remailed to Petitioner on August 14, 2023. 

Case 3:22-cv-01156-C-BT Document 27 Filed 09/11/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 363
The Court has conducted an independent review of the Magistrate Judge’s findings and

conclusions and finds no error. It is therefore ORDERED that the Findings, Conclusions, and

Recommendation are hereby ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions of the Court. 

For the reasons stated therein, Petitioner’s Motion to Supplement Under Rule 59(e) is

DENIED because Petitioner’s arguments fail to demonstrate that he satisfies the savings clause

under § 2255(e). 

SO ORDERED.

Dated this 11th day of September, 2023.

SAM R. CUMMINGS

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 3:22-cv-01156-C-BT Document 27 Filed 09/11/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 364
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 notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank                           ( print page 67372)                        Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).                 

The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than November 27, 2000. 

                    A.                     **Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis**                     (JoAnne F. Lewellen, Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:                 

*1. Douglas Loren Jilek,*                     Lester Prairie, Minnesota, to acquire additional voting shares of Prairie Bancshares, Inc., Lester Prairie, Minnesota, and thereby indirectly acquire additional voting shares of First Community Bank Lester Prairie, Lester Prairie, Minnesota, and First Community Bank Silver Lake, Silver Lake, Minnesota.                 

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November 6, 2000 

Robert deV. Frierson, 

Associate Secretary of the Board. 

[FR Doc. 00-28825 Filed 11-8-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
EXHIBIT 31.2
 
 I, R. Llee Chapman, certify that:
 
 1. I have reviewed this amended quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Apollo Gold Corporation for the period ended September 30, 2004;
 
 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
 
 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
 
 4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 
 a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
 
 b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
 
 c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
 
 5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 
 a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the 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 who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.
 
 ****Date: January 20, 2005
By:
/s/ R. Llee ChapmanR. Llee Chapman, Chief Financial Officer
Case 3:22-cv-00922-S-BK Document 19 Filed 09/08/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 73
NO. 07-12-0118-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL C

JUNE 21, 2012

______________________________

WANDA HOPE ALLEN, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 64TH DISTRICT COURT OF SWISHER COUNTY;

NO. A3960-0506; HONORABLE ROBERT W. KINKAID, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

**MEMORANDUM OPINION**

Pending before this Court is a *Motion to Dismiss Appeal*filed by Wanda Hope Allen's counsel in which he represents that Appellant wishes to withdraw her notice of appeal and dismiss the appeal.  The motion is signed by counsel but not by Appellant.  However, attached to the motion is a letter from Appellant to counsel notifying him of her desire to no longer pursue this appeal.  We dismiss this appeal.

Rule 42.2(a) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that an appeal may be dismissed if an appellant withdraws his or her notice of appeal by signed motion accompanied by the signature of the appellant's attorney.  The purpose of the requirement that a motion to dismiss be signed by both the appellant and counsel may be to protect an appellant from having his or her appeal dismissed by counsel without consent and to insure that counsel had notice of the dismissal to advise the client on the consequences of a dismissal.  *Conners v. State*, 966 S.W.2d 108, 110 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, pet. ref'd). 

The decision of whether to take an appeal from a criminal conviction is personal to the accused.*See**id*. at 110 (citing *Jones v. Barnes*, 463 U.S. 745, 751, 103 S.Ct. 3308, 77 L.Ed.2d 987 (1983).  Thus, we apply Rule 2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure to suspend the requirement in Rule 42.2(a) that Appellants signature appear on the motion to dismiss and accept her letter to counsel expressing her intent as sufficient to satisfy the spirit of the rule.  No decision of this Court having been delivered, we dismiss the appeal.  No motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith.

Patrick A. Pirtle

							      Justice

Do not publish.

2
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 Commerce

###### National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

          - [I.D. 101300A]

# AGENCY:

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

# ACTION:

Issuance of permit.

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given that Dr. Terrie Williams, Department of Biology, EMS-A316, University of California at Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, California 95064, has been issued a permit to maintain Atlantic bottlenose dolphins (                        *Tursiops truncatus*) and California sea lions (                        *Zalophus californianus*)  for purposes of scientific research.                    

# ADDRESSES:

The permit and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following office(s):

Permits and Documentation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910 (301/713-2289); and

Regional Administrator, Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213 (562/980-4001).

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ruth Johnson or Simona Roberts, 301/713-2289.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    On September 6, 2000, notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     (65 FR 53988) that a request for a scientific research permit had been submitted by the above-named individual.  The requested permit has been issued under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361*et seq.*) and the Regulations Governing the Taking and Importing of Marine Mammals (50 CFR part 216).                

Dated: November 1, 2000.

Ann D. Terbush,

Chief, Permits and Documentation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.

[FR Doc. 00-28576 Filed 11-6-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-22-S
#### WATTAM v. STATE.

No. 21451.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 26, 1941.

Evans J. Adkins, of Brady, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of driving on a public highway while intoxicated, and assessed a penalty of five days in jail with a fine of $250.

We are presented with only one bill of exception in the case, which complains of the action of the prosecution in exhibiting a part of a bottle of gin which was taken off the person of appellant when he was arrested on the highway. We are unable to find any harmful result to appellant by the exhibition of the gin as described in the bill of exception.

The proceedings seem to be regular in every way; the evidence justifies the verdict of the jury and, consequently, there is nothing for this court to review.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
<PAGE> 1                                                 EXHIBIT 11.

MUSTANG SOFTWARE, INC.

COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
(In thousands, except earnings per share) (Unaudited)
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
<TABLE>

                                                        Three Months Ended  
                                                        Mar 31,              
                                                        1995       1996     
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                     <C>       <C>      
Weighted average number of common shares outstanding     2,106     3,358    
Common stock equivlents from outstanding stock options      25         0    
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average common and common stock equivalents outstanding  2,131     3,358   
===============================================================================
Net Income                                               $  12    $ (651)    	
===============================================================================
Earnings per share (1)                                   $ .01    $ (.19)   
===============================================================================
</TABLE>

(1) Fully diluted earnings per share have not been presented because the effects
are not material.
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

<PAGE>
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
<PAGE>   1

                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.125

                                 LEASE AMENDMENT


That certain OFFICE BUILDING LEASE dated June 13, 1997, Amended on May 14, 1998,
and Amended on May 12, 1999 by and between LAGUNA NIGUEL OFFICE CENTER, a
California Limited Partnership, as Landlord, and OPTIMUMCARE CORPORATION, a
Delaware Corporation, as Tenant, is hereby amended as follows:

         1)       Lease shall be extended for a period of one (1) year. The new
                  lease expiration date shall be June 30, 2001.

         2)       Rental rate shall increase to $2130.00 per month effective
                  July 1, 2000.

         3)       Carpet cleaning and touch up painting have been completed at
                  Landlord's expense, per tenant's request.

         4)       All other terms and conditions of the original lease shall
                  remain the same.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of May
31, 2000.


LAGUNA NIGUEL OFFICE CENTER                       OPTIMUMCARE CORPORATION
a California Limited Partnership                  a Delaware Corporation




BY: CARL J. GREENWOOD                             BY: EDWARD JOHNSON
    -----------------                                 --------------
    Carl J. Greenwood, General Partner                Edward Johnson, President



         (Landlord)                                       (Tenant)