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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary information extracted from the Consolidated
Statement of Operations and the Consolidated Balance Sheet and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000943206
<NAME> COMPUTER LEARNING CENTERS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1998
<CASH>                                           7,922
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   84,570
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (20,187)
<INVENTORY>                                      1,312
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                71,545
<PP&E>                                          51,304
<DEPRECIATION>                                (15,589)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 121,270
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           60,810
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           174
<OTHER-SE>                                      53,719
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   121,270
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                71,329
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   65,368
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 4,015
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,659
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,654
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,005
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,005
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.22
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET WHICH
ARE CONTAINED IN THE BODY OF THE ACCOMPANYING FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1999
<CASH>                                           4,172
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   72,503
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (18,583)
<INVENTORY>                                      1,154
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                70,192
<PP&E>                                          59,750
<DEPRECIATION>                                (22,066)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 119,977
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           57,203
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           175
<OTHER-SE>                                      52,785
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   119,977
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                35,982
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   38,652
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   9
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,679)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,111)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,568)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,568)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.09)


</TABLE>
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1206

To amend title 28, United States Code, to make the Department of Justice

Assets Forfeiture Fund available for support of certain community-based

social service agencies.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 3, 1993

Mr. REYNOLDS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 28, United States Code, to make the Department of Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund available for

support of certain community-based social service

agencies.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 1206 IH

1 SECTION 1. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ASSETS FORFEIT2 URE FUND TO BE AVAILABLE FOR CERTAIN

3 COMMUNITY-BASED SOCIAL SERVICE AGEN4 CIES.

5 Section 524(c) of title 28, United States Code, is

6 amended by adding at the end the following new para7 graph:

8 ‘‘(13)(A) In addition to any other purpose set forth

9 in this subsection, the Fund shall be available to the Attor10 ney General, subject to appropriations Acts, for support

11 of community-based social service agencies that provide

12 programs for at-risk youth, drug abuse prevention, treat13 ment, and control, and victim assistance.

14 ‘‘(B) Amounts paid under subparagraph (A) with re15 spect to a fiscal year may not exceed 25 percent of the

16 total of amounts paid from the Fund with respect to that

17 fiscal year.

18 ‘‘(C) In providing support under this paragraph, the

19 Attorney General shall, to the greatest extent practicable,

20 give preference to social service agencies in communities

21 in which forfeited property is located.’’.

22 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

23 The amendment made by section 1 shall apply with

24 respect to fiscal years beginning after the fiscal year in

25 which this Act is enacted.

Æ
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jose Gonzalez, Also Known as Juan Perez, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herbert Altman, J.), rendered March 6, 1987, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first and second degrees and sentencing defendant to concurrent prison terms of from 8 to 16 years and 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

The hearing court properly found that the complainant’s out-of-court identifications of defendant were not unnecessarily suggestive or conducive to mistaken identification. The fact that the photographic array and the photograph of the lineup were apparently lost sometime after trial does not give rise to an inference that the array or lineup was suggestive, since the hearing court had the opportunity to view the photographs and determined that they were not unduly suggestive. *(People v Eleby,*137 AD2d 707, *lv denied*71 NY2d 1026.)

Contrary to defendant’s claim pertaining to the prosecutor’s summation, the remarks complained of that there were no other eyewitnesses aside from persons "involved with defendant” are not of such character as would naturally and reasonably be interpreted by the jury as adverse comment on defendant’s failure to take the stand. *(See, People v Burke,*72 NY2d 833.)

We have considered defendant’s other claims and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Carro, Milonas and Rubin, JJ.
#### James R. Gibson et al., Respondents, v Worthington Division of McGraw-Edison Company, Appellant. Worthington Division of Cooper Industries, Inc., Formerly Worthington Division of McGraw-Edison Company, Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v Edward M. Ziegler Co., Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

(Appeal No. 1.)

— Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed with costs to plaintiffs in accordance with the following memo*936randum: Defendant and third-party plaintiff Worthington Division appeals from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict awarding plaintiffs damages for violation of section 240 (1) of the Labor Law. The trial was on damages only, since plaintiffs had been previously granted partial summary judgment on liability *(see, Gibson v Worthington Div.,*140 Mise 2d 188, *affd*142 AD2d 991). Defendant argues that the verdict was excessive.

The award for pain and suffering did not deviate materially from what would be reasonable compensation *(see,*CPLR 5501 [c]). Mr. Gibson suffered serious and permanent injuries including brain damage, fractures of his skull, shoulder, vertebrae and ribs and a narrowing of his spinal cord. Moreover, expert medical testimony established that Mr. Gibson suffered objectively verified neurological damage. The award to Mrs. Gibson on her derivative cause of action was not excessive *(see generally, Millington v Southeastern Elevator Co.,*22 NY2d 498, 502-503). She underwent hip replacement surgery shortly before her husband’s accident and required more of his attention and care. Moreover, she testified that his injuries caused an almost total loss in their sexual relationship. Defendant failed to preserve for review its contention that the verdict was inconsistent. The award for lost earnings and future impairment of earnings was not excessive. However, the award of $185,500 for past impairment of earnings is excessive and should be reduced to $80,000 since Mr. Gibson earned, at most, annual bonus money of approximately $20,000 and likely would not have earned more in the four-year period between 1983 when he was injured and 1987 when he retired.

Defendant also appeals from an order which denied its motion for partial summary judgment against third-party defendant Edward M. Ziegler Co., Inc. on its third-party complaint for indemnification. The court properly denied defendant’s motion because it did not establish, as a matter of law, that the third-party defendant was negligent. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Fudeman, J.— negligence.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.
#### Timothy J. Farnham, Respondent, v Aaron L. Kittinger, Defendant, and Consolidated Rail Corporation et al., Appellants.

(Appeal No. 2.)

— Appeal from order, insofar as it reserved decision on defendants’ motions for summary *924judgment, unanimously dismissed, and order otherwise affirmed without costs. Same memorandum as in *Cobb v Kittinger*([appeal No. 1] 168 AD2d 923 [decided herewith]). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, Ricotta, J. —summary judgment.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Green, Pine and Davis, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Clifford Baker, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jerome Hornblass, J.), rendered April 17, 1989, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the third degree and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an indeterminate term of from 3 Vi to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant was apprehended by a police officer moments after he robbed a woman at the 207th Street subway station. The victim immediately identified defendant, after which he was arrested and made inculpatory statements.

Defendant’s guilt was proved beyond a reasonable doubt by overwhelming evidence. The victim’s emotional state and ability to observe the defendant, upon which her identification was predicated, were issues for the jury *(People v Carter,*155 AD2d 276, *lv denied 75*NY2d 811), and we find no reason to disturb the findings of the jury. Similarly, defendant’s challenge to the court’s ruling denying suppression of identification testimony on the basis of the purported suggestiveness of a police-arranged identification procedure is meritless. Neither do we find the sentence to be an abuse of discretion. Concur— Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Milonas, Rosenberger and Kassal, JJ.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A21A0597. THE KROGER CO. v. LAQUAN TREMELL TAYLOR.

The Appellant in the above styled case has filed a motion entitled Unopposed

Motion For Permission To Withdraw Appeal. Pursuant to Court Rule 41(g)(1), said

motion is hereby GRANTED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

February 08, 2021

02/08/2021
US ONCOLOGY HOLDINGS, INC. AND US ONCOLOGY, INC.



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 US Oncology Holdings, Inc. and US Oncology, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Bruce D. Broussard, 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 result of operations of the Company.



|                                                
|------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Bruce D. Broussard                          
|Bruce D. Broussard                              
|Chief Executive Officer of                      
|US Oncology Holdings, Inc. and US Oncology, Inc.

August 8, 2008
EXHIBIT 32


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I,
the undersigned officer of Atlantis Gaming Corporation
(the "Company"), hereby certify to my knowledge
that:

The Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2015 of the Company fully complies, in all material respects,
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the
Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

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.


                             /s/ Daniel L. Bailey
                                 Chief Executive Officer
                                 Chief Financial Officer
Date: April 13, 2016
Exhibit 32.1



STATEMENT FURNISHED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE 
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Zev Ventures,
Inc. (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017 (the “Report”), I, Zev Turetsky, President
and Chief Executive Officer, certify as follows:



| | A) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d),
as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)), and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | B) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods covered by the Report.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This statement is authorized to be attached
as an exhibit to the Report so that this statement will accompany the Report at such time as the Report is filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. Pursuant to Securities
and Exchange Commission Release 33-8238, dated June 5, 2003, this certification is being furnished and shall not be deemed filed
by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or incorporated by reference in any
registration statement of the Company filed under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, except to the extent that the Company
specifically incorporates it by reference. 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.





|Date: May 3, 2018 | By:    |  | /s/
    Zev Turetsky                 
|----------------- | ------ |  | -------------------------------------
|                  | Name:  |  | Zev Turetsky                         
|                  | Title: |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                  |        |  | (Principal Executive Officer)
#### HEDSPETH v. STATE.

No. 22054.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 8, 1942.

Reginald Bracewell, of Huntsville, for appellant.

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

DAVIDSON, Judge.

.The unlawful sale of whiskey in a dry area is the offense; the punishment, a fine of $100.

That appellant sold whiskey in Walker County, a dry area, as charged in the information, is not disputed. The question for determination here is whether the complaint was sufficient to support the information. In this connection, it appears that appellant moved to quash the information because of a variance between the name of the purchaser of the whiskey as stated in the complaint and that as set forth in the information. The trial court overruled the motion to quash, and, over appellant’s objection, permitted the State to amend the complaint by changing the name of the alleged purchaser as it appeared therein to the name as stated in the information. In this the trial court was in error.

In Patillo v. State, 3 Tex.App. 442, we said: “Clearly the court had no right to amend, or permit any one else to amend, the affidavit. Affiant himself could not have done so without being sworn anew as to the amended statement. Whenever ■ the court permitted the county attorney to amend the affidavit, it ceased to be the act of affiant; * * See, also, Phariss v. State, 136 Tex.Cr.R. 504, 126 S.W.2d 981.

The name of the alleged purchaser of the whiskey was a matter of substance in the State’s pleadings.

The judgment is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.

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.
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit 

No. 21-10702 

Summary Calendar 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Jose Eduardo Bonilla-Turcios, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas 

USDC No. 3:18-CR-631-4 

Before Davis, Jones, and Elrod, Circuit Judges. 

Per Curiam:*

The attorney appointed to represent Jose Eduardo Bonilla-Turcios 

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Bonilla-Turcios has not filed a response. We have 

*

 Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

April 26, 2022 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 21-10702 Document: 00516295000 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/26/2022
No. 21-10702 

2 

reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected 

therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no 

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for 

leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further 

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. 

R. 42.2. 

Case: 21-10702 Document: 00516295000 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/26/2022
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C.

Aircraft Management Services, Inc. Complainant

v. Santa Rosa Connty, Florida (sponsoring Peter Prince Field) Respondent FAA Docket No. 16-12-02

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME

This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based onthe abovereferenced complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules of Practicefor Federally-Assisted AirportEnforcementProceedings, 14 CFR, Part 16. Pursuantto 14 CFR, Part 16, subpart B, the date by whichthe Director's Determination will be issued inthis matter is hereby extended to February 27, 2015. An extension oftime is necessary and appropriate for a fair and complete determination in this case.

Director ofOffice ofAirport Compliance and Management Analysis DateCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFYthat on January 

# :Jo ,2015, I caused to be placed inthe United States mail (first class mail, postage paid) a true copy ofthe FAA's Request for Additional Information and Notice ofExtension ofTime, addressed to: For Complainant Ryan P. Hatler Michael J. Schofield Clark, Partington, Hart, Larry, Bond & Stackhouse 125 West Romana Street, Suite 800 P.O. Box 13010 Pensacola, FL 32591-3010

For Respondent AngelaJ. Jones Santa Rosa County's Attorney's Office 6495 Caroline Street Milton, FL 32570 Gregory T. Stewart Harry F. Chiles William Garner Nobors, Giblin & Nickerson, P.A. 1500 Mahan Drive, Suite 200 Tallahassee, FL 32308 Copy to: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket FAA Airport Compliance and ManagementAnalysis, AC0-100



# tb,J-;;~,, nne Torgerson Office ofAirport Compliance and

Management Analysis