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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         589,822
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  700,606
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     59,353
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,443,365
<PP&E>                                       2,121,206
<DEPRECIATION>                              (1,065,805)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,515,516
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,243,447
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,324
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,065,242
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,515,516
<SALES>                                      3,054,924
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,054,924
<CGS>                                        1,430,709
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,243,738
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (11,002)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              29,446
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (199,816)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (199,816)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (199,816)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.06)
        

</TABLE>
IIA

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 184

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 7 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 12), 1994

Received

OCTOBER 8 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 12), 1994

Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Designating the weekend of October 15–16, 1994, as ‘‘Small

Towns and Townships Weekend’’.

Whereas small towns and townships have been the spirit and

backbone of this great Nation and have provided many

common, traditional ideals and values throughout our

history;

Whereas it is appropriate to recognize the importance of

small towns and townships in the development of a sense

of community and to highlight the spirit of small towns

and townships;
2

HJ 184 RFS

Whereas it is vital to unify residents of small towns and

townships in the process of revitalizing their own community and reinvigorating small-town life; and

Whereas it is fitting that official recognition be given to the

importance of small towns and townships and a weekend

set aside for activities that are most commonly associated

with small towns and townships, such as town festivals,

family picnics, and baseball games: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That the weekend of October 15–16, 1994, is designated

4 as ‘‘Small Towns and Townships Weekend’’, and the

5 President is authorized and requested to issue a proclama6 tion calling on the people of the United States to observe

7 such weekend with appropriate ceremonies and activities.

Passed the House of Representatives October 7,

1994.

Attest: DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

Clerk.
Case 4:22-cr-00118-P Document 20 Filed 04/20/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 75
Case 4:22-cr-00118-P Document 20 Filed 04/20/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 76
#### CARLEY v. STATE.

No. 25247.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 28, 1951.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

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

MORRISON, Judge.

Appellant was charged by complaint and information with the offense of driving while intoxicated. He waived a trial by jury and plead guilty before the court. He was found guilty and assessed a penalty of $50.00 fine.

There is neither a statement of facts nor bill of exception in the record. All proceedings appear to be regular and nothing is presented for review.

The judgment of the trial court is accordingly affirmed.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 7757

ERIC LAMONT COLES , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. T. DARDEN, Assistant Warden; M. FOSTER, Unit Manager; LIEUTENANT A. BENTLEY; CAPTAIN LORD , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. Robert E. Payne , Senior District Judge. ( 3:19

- cv
- 00528

- REP

- RCY )

Submitted : July 15, 2020 Decided: August 17, 2020

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING , Circuit Judge , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Eric Lamont Coles, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Eric Lamo nt Coles appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2018) action without prejudice because he failed to pay the initial partial filing fee or state that he is unable to pay . On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the
informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Coles ’ informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, he has forfeited appellate review of the court’s
order. See Jackson v. Lightsey , 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 201 4) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”) . Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal con tentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
    THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM PHOENIX
    GOLD INTERNATIONAL, INC.'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN ITS QUARTERLY
    REPORT ON FORM 10-QSB/A FOR THE PERIOD ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1995 AND IS
    QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    SEP-29-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                         DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                                   234,181
<SECURITIES>                                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          3,767,745
<ALLOWANCES>                                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                            5,280,686
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       9,906,545
<PP&E>                                                 4,754,646
<DEPRECIATION>                                         1,206,925
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        14,141,831
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  2,298,890
<BONDS>                                                  255,927
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                          0
<PREFERRED>                                                    0
<COMMON>                                               7,432,987
<OTHER-SE>                                             4,154,027
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          14,141,831
<SALES>                                                5,127,789
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       5,127,789
<CGS>                                                  3,633,569
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          5,829,472
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        10,361
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         (692,549)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            (266,375)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     (426,174)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                0
<CHANGES>                                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                            (426,174)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                               (.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                               (.12)

        

</TABLE>
**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 Apollo Gold Corporation (the “Company”)
      on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
      undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant
      to § 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 result of operations of the Company.




/s/
              R. DAVID
              RUSSELLR.
                David Russell
              President
                and Chief Executive Officer
              November
                14, 2006


/s/ MELVYN WILLIAMSMelvyn Williams
                Chief
                    Financial Officer and Senior Vice
                  President-Finance
                    and Corporate Development
                  November
                    14, 2006


A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<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 of Smithway Motor Xpress Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, G.
Larry Owens, 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/ G. Larry Owens
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        G. Larry Owens
                                        Chief Executive Officer
                                        May 15, 2007
#### ROGERS v. STATE.

No. 21680.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 25, 1941.

*761B. F. Whitworth and S. I. Cornett, both of Linden, for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was charged by indictment with the theft of two bales of cotton and assessed a penalty of two years in the penitentiary.

The evidence shows that W. O. Betts, a ginner at Marietta in Cass County, lost two bales of cotton from his gin, each belonging to different customers. He learned on Saturday that one bale was missing from the yard and on the following Monday learned that another was missing. He did not know that they were taken at the same time and was under the impression that they were taken at different times because there was a wide variance between their ginning numbers.

The appellant was found with two bales of cotton, and it is claimed that these two bales were the ones that were missed from the yard. It seems, however, that the identification of the cotton is very uncertain. The prosecuting witness said he could not identify them, “only the boys who tied the cotton up said it looked like our cotton”. The weights of the two bales lost were 510 and 525 pounds. The two bales recovered were 512 and 528 pounds. The numbers had been so changed that they did not aid in the identification of the cotton.

The witness Betts was not able to give the market value of the cotton, but said that they could be placed with the government at *9.8‡*per pound. At this figure one bale of cotton would bring $49.98 and another $51.45, but this is no proof of the market value. The state produced one witness, Lewis Rogers, who qualified to testify to the market value of the cotton on the 10th day of October and who says it was about 91⁄2$7⁄8 per pound. At this figure one bale would be worth $47.17 and the other $48.56. It is evident that the proof fails to show the two bales of cotton were taken at the same time, but, to the contrary, indicates that they were taken at different times and the only market value shown places the value of each bale at less than $50. Consequently, it appears the defendant, if guilty, was amenable to the misdemeanor provisions of our law and not subject to prosecution for a felony.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

ARNOLD STEVEN MIRALDA-CRUZ, §

 Plaintiff, §

§

v. § No. 3:22-cv-1378-B (BT) 

§

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Defendant.

§

§

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

After making an independent review of the pleadings, files and records in this case, and the

Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge dated July 28,

2022, the Court finds that the Findings and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are correct,

and they are accepted as the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the Court.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation

of the United States Magistrate Judge are accepted. 

SO ORDERED this 16 day of August, 2022. th

_________________________________

JANE J. BOYLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-01378-B-BT Document 7 Filed 08/16/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 26
Dear Jake,

Aerial Imaging Systems SUAVs are multi-rotorcraft DJI Phantom 2 Vision aircraft with digital 

gyroscope stabilization and GPS, Phantom 2 vision weight (including Lipo battery, (4) props, and 

payload) is 3.557 lbs., weighting 55 lbs or less. Max flight speed is 15 m/s, accent 6 m/s, decent 2 m/s. 

The phantom 2 vision has the capability to hover and move in the vertical and horizontal plane 

independently/simultaneously. If any additional imformation is needed to process this exemption please 

email me at scottecarlson459@gmail.com. Thanks for your time.

Scott Carlson

Aerial Imaging Systems
#### Kuebler et ux. *v.*Roberts, Adr., Appellant.

Argued December 14, 1939.

Before Keller, P. J., Cunningham, Baldrige, Stadtfeld, Parker, Rhodes and Hikt, JJ.

*Irving W.*Coleman, for appellant.

*Martin II. Philip*and *Bernard M.*Goodman, for appellee, were not heard.

*209January 30, 1940:

Per Curiam,

The court below was of opinion that the verdict in favor of the wife plaintiff for $402.50 for damages for personal injuries alleged to have been suffered by her at the hands of the defendant’s decedent was so grossly inadequate as to call for the granting of a new trial as to her.

The evidence produced on her behalf showed that she was shot in the head on February 6, 1939. The bullet entered her head near the temple, plowed its way through, and came out on the other side. A portion of the bullet or missile, however, seems to have lodged in her head, for X-ray pictures show a piece of metal imbedded there. It was a wonder that she was not killed. The testimony of her witnesses shows that she was in the hospital for two weeks; that she endured great pain and suffering and had to take numerous drugs and anesthetics to relieve her suffering. Her eyesight may have suffered a permanent partial disability, and the injury has affected certain nerves and muscles controlling her jaw, causing a droop of her mouth.

We held in *Lemon v.*Campbell, 136 Pa. Superior Ct. 370, 7 A. 2d 643, that where the trial court, in its discretion, deems the verdict of the jury grossly inadequate, it is its duty, on motion of the plaintiff, to grant a new trial; that it cannot enter a conditional order refusing to grant a new trial on the defendant’s stipulating for an increase in the verdict. See *Bradwell v. Pittsburgh & W. E. Pass. Ry. Co.,*139 Pa. 404, 20 A. 1046; *Dimick v. Schiedt,*293 U. S. 474.

In the circumstances, we find no abuse of discretion by the court below in granting a new trial.

Order affirmed.
EXHIBIT 

B

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 263-2 Filed 09/20/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID 5258
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

JENNIFER VANDERSTOK; 

MICHAEL G. ANDREN;

TACTICAL MACHINING, LLC;

FIREARMS POLICY COALITION, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs and Intervenors

and

Not An LLC d/b/a JSD SUPPLY,

Applicant in Intervention,

v.

MERRICK GARLAND; 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; 

STEVEN DETTELBACH; and BUREAU OF 

ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS AND 

EXPLOSIVES,

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-691-O

SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF JORDAN VINROE

I, Jordan Vinroe, declare under penalty of perjury, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, that the 

following statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge:

1. I am over 18 years of age, competent to testify, and have personal knowledge of 

the matters stated herein.

2. I am the sole member and manager of Not An LLC, doing business as JSD 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 213-1 Filed 05/11/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID 4653 Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 263-2 Filed 09/20/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID 5259
Supply, a Pennsylvania limited liability company. 

3. Compared to 2021 , JSD's income is down 87% since the Final Rule at issue in 

the above captioned case was announced in April 2022 and down 73% since the Final Rule 

became effective in Augsut 2022. 

Dated this 2_!!!_day of May 2023: 

Manager, Not an LLC, dba JSD Supply 

2 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 213-1 Filed 05/11/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID 4654 Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 263-2 Filed 09/20/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID 5260
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997             JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           5,100                   5,100
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  176,700                 176,700
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                    160,200                 160,200
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               395,400                 395,400
<PP&E>                                         177,100                 177,100
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 998,400                 998,400
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          187,700                 187,700
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (45,800)                (45,800)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   998,400                 998,400
<SALES>                                        207,500                 408,100
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               207,500                 408,100
<CGS>                                          104,300                 201,600
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  183,100                 361,300
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (21,900)                (43,300)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,900                   3,500
<INCOME-TAX>                                       700                   1,300
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,200                   2,200
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0<F1>                   0<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0<F1>                   0<F1>
<FN>
<F1><FN>
<F1>Earnings per share are not calculated because the Company's common
    stock is not publicly traded.
</FN>
        



</FN>
        
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### Will SIMPSON et al., Appellants, v. C. R. YARBOROUGH, Appellee.

No. 14576.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Fort Worth.

April 21, 1944.

Israel Smith, of Tyler, for appellant.

White & Yarborough, of Dallas, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

On November 12, 1943, we affirmed the judgment of the trial court. In view of the opinion of the Supreme Court in Simpson v. McDonald, Chief Justice, et al., Tex.Sup., 179 S.W.2d 239, our former judgment is hereby set aside, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and judgment is here rendered in favor of appellants. Our former opinion reported in 175 S.W.2d 630, is withdrawn.