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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                   
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                  
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                        2,003,15
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,548,961
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,266,212
<PP&E>                                       3,575,315
<DEPRECIATION>                                 998,009
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,310,662
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,317,320
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    760,260
<COMMON>                                        59,066
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,740,944
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,310,662
<SALES>                                     11,555,035
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,607,663
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,848,220
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,275,402
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              80,944
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,484,041      
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,898,751      
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,504,346      
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0      
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0      
<CHANGES>                                            0      
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,504,346      
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.41<F1>      
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.38<F2>      
<FN>
<F1> EPS-Basic per SFAS No. 128.
<F2> EPS-Diluted per SFAS No. 128.
</FN>
        


</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 Annual Report of Drinks Americas Holdings, Ltd (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, J.
Patrick Kenny, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

1. the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

/s/ J. Patrick Kenny                                              August 7, 2007
-----------------------
J. Patrick Kenny,
Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 99.1

          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 Trimol Group Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned Chief Executive Officer of the Company hereby certifies, 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 the Company as of and for the periods
covered in the Report.


                                                     /s/ Alexander M Gordin
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Alexander M. Gordin
                                                     Chief Executive Officer
                                                     TRIMOL GROUP, INC.

August 14, 2002


                                       12
-79 -78 -77 -76 -75 -74 -73

 39

 40

 41

 42

★

▲ ▲

▲

▲

★ ▲

▲ ▲

▲ 500

 1000

 1500

 500

18 12 06 00

08/24

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 24 Aug 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.41 N 76.30 W Meters AGL
Exhibit 10.16


 


SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE

TRIMAS CORPORATION

2002 LONG TERM EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN


 


Pursuant to Section 7(d) of
the TriMas Corporation 2002 Long Term Equity Incentive Plan (the “2002 Equity
Plan”) and resolutions adopted by the Board of Directors of TriMas Corporation
(the “Corporation”) on May 3, 2007, the 2002 Equity Plan is hereby amended
as set forth below.


 


Effective as
of the last business day immediately preceding the effective date of the
Corporation’s Registration Statement under the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, Section 2(m) of the Plan is amended and restated in its
entirety to read as follows:


 


2.             Definitions.


 


(m)          “Fair Market Value” unless defined otherwise in the Plan,
means, as of any determination date, the value of a share of Common Stock,
calculated as follows:


 


               (i)            If
the Common Stock is listed on any established Stock Exchange or a national
market system, without limitation, the New York Stock Exchange, the Nasdaq
National Market or the Nasdaq Small Cap Market, the Fair Market Value shall be
the closing sales price for a share of such stock (or the closing bid, if no
sales were reported) as quoted on such exchange or system for the date of
determination, as reported in The Wall Street Journal or such other source as
the Administrator deems reliable.


 


               (ii)           If
the Common Stock is regularly quoted by a recognized securities dealer but
selling prices are not reported, the Fair Market Value shall be the mean
between the high bid and low asked prices for a share of the Common Stock for
the date of determination.


 


               (iii)          In
the absence of an established market for the Common Stock, the Fair Market
Value for the determination date shall be calculated in good faith by the
Committee.


 


This Second
Amendment to the TriMas Corporation 2002 Long Term Equity Incentive Plan is
hereby adopted on the 3rd day of May, 2007.


 


	
   

  	
  TRIMAS CORPORATION

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Joshua
  A. Sherbin

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Joshua A.
  Sherbin

  
	
   

  	
  Its: 

  	
  Secretary
  and General Counsel
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-40123 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus BOBBY JOE PRESSLEY, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Texas (4:93-CR-55) March 10, 1998 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, DAVIS and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * 

### Bobby Joe Pressley appeals his sentence on resentencing for possession with
int ent to distribute less than five grams of cocaine base within 1000 feet of an elementary school. This resentencing following the grant of his 28 U.S.C. § 22551 United States v. Scott , 672 F.2d 454 (5th Cir. 1982); Williamson v. United States , 265

F.2d 236 (5th Cir. 1959).

2 United States v. Merrifield , 764 F.2d 436 (5th Cir. 1985); Fed.R.App.P. 4(b).
2 

### motion is considered a criminal proceeding. 1 

### Pressley filed his notice of appeal outside the appeal period for criminal cases. We therefore lack jurisdiction to address his appeal. 2


### APPEAL DISMISSED.
|   | 1. | the      Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all      material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/      STEVEN L. WATSON |   |
|---------------------------|--------|

| /s/      JAMES W. BROWN |   |
|-------------------------|--------|

| Note: | The      certification the registrant furnishes in this exhibit is not deemed      “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,      as amended, or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that      Section.  Registration Statements or other documents filed with      the Securities and Exchange Commission shall not incorporate this exhibit      by reference, except as otherwise expressly stated in such      filing. |
|-------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Order entered May 30, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-00887-CR

MIQUEL ZUNIGA LOPEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F12-00559-J

ORDER

In this case, appellant raises an issue related to the costs assessed against him. The 

record, however, does not contain a cost bill or other document with an itemized list of costs 

assessed in this case.

Accordingly, we ORDER the Dallas County District Clerk to file, within FIFTEEN 

DAYS of the date of this order, a supplemental clerk’s record containing a detailed itemization 

of the costs assessed in this case, including but not limited to, specific court costs, fees, and court 

appointed attorney fees. We further ORDER that the supplemental clerk’s record include a 

document explaining any and all abbreviations used to designate a particular fee, cost, or court 

appointed attorney fee.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to Gary 

Fitzsimmons, Dallas County District Clerk; the Dallas County District Clerk’s Office, Criminal 

Records Division; and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

Byron White United States Courthouse

1823 Stout Street

Denver, Colorado 80257

(303) 844

- 3157

May 11, 2017 Chris Wolpert

Chief Deputy Clerk

Mr. Robert Seldis Berger

Robert S. Berger, P.C.

P.O. Box 201088

Denver, CO 80220

- 1088

Mr. Joseph Anthony Ransom

#24909

- 031

FCI

– Englewood

9595 West Quincy Avenue

Littleton, CO 80123

RE: 15

- 3293, United States v. Ransom

Dist/Ag docket: 6:14

- CR

- 10194

- EFM

- 1

Dear Counsel and Appellant:

Enclosed is a copy of the order and judgment issued today in this matter. The court has

entered judgment on the docket pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. Rule 36.

Please contact this office if you have questions.

Sincerely,

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of the Court

cc: David M. Lind

Colin D. Wood

EAS/mlb
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1088 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1088

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 20, 2009

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for a one-year period 
for the training of new disabled veterans' outreach program specialists 
 and local veterans' employment representatives by National Veterans' 
              Employment and Training Services Institute.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Mandatory Veteran Specialist 
Training Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. ONE-YEAR PERIOD FOR TRAINING OF NEW DISABLED VETERANS' OUTREACH 
              PROGRAM SPECIALISTS AND LOCAL VETERANS' EMPLOYMENT 
              REPRESENTATIVES BY NATIONAL VETERANS' EMPLOYMENT AND 
              TRAINING SERVICES INSTITUTE.

    (a) One-Year Period.--Section 4102A(c)(8)(A) of title 38, United 
States Code is amended by striking ``three-year period'' and inserting 
``one-year period''.
    (b) Effective Date.--
            (1) Applicability to new employees.--The amendment made by 
        subsection (a) shall apply with respect to a State employee 
        assigned to perform the duties of a disabled veterans' outreach 
        program specialist or a local veterans' employment 
        representative under chapter 41 of such title who is so 
        assigned on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
            (2) Applicability to previously-hired employees.--In the 
        case of such a State employee who is so assigned on or after 
        January 1, 2006, and before the date of the enactment of this 
        Act, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall require the State 
        to require, as a condition of a grant or contract under which 
        funds are made available to the State in order to carry out 
        section 4103A or 4104 of title 38, United States Code, each 
        such employee to satisfactorily complete the training described 
        in section 4102A(c)(8)(A) of such title by not later than the 
        date that is one year after the date of the enactment of this 
        Act.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 19, 2009.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
RUSH ENTERPRISES, INC.
AMENDED AND RESTATED
1997 NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR STOCK OPTION PLAN
 Purpose
 Administration
 Option Shares




---



##### 



Grant of Options
    Duration of Options
 Amount Exercisable
 Exercise of Options
  - 2 -




---



##### 



Transferability of Options
 Termination
   - 3 -




---



##### 



Requirements of Law
   - 4 -




---



##### 



No Rights as Shareholder
 Changes in the Companys Capital Structure
  Amendment or Termination of Plan
  - 5 -




---



##### 



Written Agreement
 Indemnification of Committee
 Effective Date of Plan
  - 6 -
* Pursuant to 5th CIR. R. 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 CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-50655

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JIMMY DALE HENDRICK,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. A-97-CR-25-1

March 24, 1999

Before JOHNSON, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jimmy Dale Hendrick appeals his conviction for two counts of mail

fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341. Hendrick argues (1) that the

evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction

and (2) that the district court erred in finding that he was a leader

or organizer under § 3B1.1 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines.

The standard under which this court reviews a claim of legal

insufficiency is whether “a rational trier of fact could have found that

the evidence establishes the essential elements of the offense beyond

a reasonable doubt.” United States v. El-Zoubi, 993 F.2d 442, 445 (5th
2

Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). This standard leaves the assessment of

the credibility of the witnesses as well as the weight of the evidence

within the exclusive province of the jury. See id. In reviewing an

insufficiency claim, we must consider the evidence in the light most

favorable to the government. See Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60,

80 (1942); United States v. Bermea, 30 F.3d 1539, 1551 (5th Cir. 1994).

After careful analysis of the record, we find that the evidence was

sufficient to support a reasonable juror’s finding of guilt beyond a

reasonable doubt on all of the essential elements of charged offense.

This Court reviews a sentencing judge’s factual findings for clear

error and the application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo. See

United States v. Cihak, 137 F.3d 252, 263 (5th Cir. 1998). A factual

finding will not be held to be clearly erroneous if it is plausible

considering the record as a whole. See United States v. Alford, 142

F.3d 825, 831 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 119 S.Ct. 514 (1998). Further,

facts contained in the presentence investigation report (PSR) may be

adopted by the district court in sentencing as long as the facts “have

an adequate evidentiary basis and the defendant does not present

rebuttal evidence.” Id. at 832. Because Hendrick did not present any

evidence at the sentencing hearing to rebut the facts presented in the

PSR, the district court was entitled to adopt the facts concerning the

number of participants in the various fraudulent schemes. Therefore,

the district court did not clearly err in finding that Hendrick was the

leader or organizer of fraudulent schemes involving at least five

participants and increasing his offense level by four points pursuant

to § 3B1.1(a) of the Guidelines. See United States v. Boutte, 13 F.3d
3

855, 860 (5th Cir. 1994). 

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2137 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2137

To amend the Rural Development Act of 1972 to improve access to grants 
 for evidence-based substance use disorder treatment services in rural 
                     areas, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 16, 2017

  Mr. Donnelly (for himself and Mr. Hoeven) introduced the following 
      bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                  Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Rural Development Act of 1972 to improve access to grants 
 for evidence-based substance use disorder treatment services in rural 
                     areas, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. RURAL HEALTH AND SAFETY EDUCATION PROGRAMS.

    (a) In General.--Section 502(i) of the Rural Development Act of 
1972 (7 U.S.C. 2662(i)) is amended--
            (1) by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph (6); and
            (2) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following:
            ``(5) Substance use disorder education and prevention.--In 
        making grants under this subsection, the Secretary shall give 
        priority to an applicant that will use the grant for substance 
        use disorder education, prevention, or treatment.''.
    (b) Technical Amendments.--Title V of the Rural Development Act of 
1972 (7 U.S.C. 2661 et seq.) (as amended by subsection (a)) is 
amended--
            (1) in section 502, in the matter preceding subsection (a), 
        by inserting ``(referred to in this title as the `Secretary')'' 
        after ``Agriculture''; and
            (2) by striking ``Secretary of Agriculture'' each place it 
        appears (other than in section 502 in the matter preceding 
        subsection (a)) and inserting ``Secretary''.
                                 <all>
```
#### BUTLER v. STATE.

No. 20694.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 25, 1939.

B. F. Edwards, of Clarksville, for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for theft of hogs, punishment being two years in the penitentiary.

The indictment properly charges the offense. No statement of facts or bills of exception are found in the record. No question is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
Comment Info: ================= General Comment:FAA-2011-0914; Dir ID 2010-NM-166-AD
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2153 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2153

 To amend title 23, United States Code, to establish electric vehicle 
              weight limitations, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 16, 2017

  Mr. Heller introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 23, United States Code, to establish electric vehicle 
              weight limitations, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Truck Technology Parity Act''.

SEC. 2. ELECTRIC VEHICLE WEIGHT LIMITATION.

    Section 127 of title 23, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
    ``(u) Electric Vehicles.--
            ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), a 
        vehicle propelled exclusively by means of electric battery 
        power may exceed any vehicle weight limit under this section by 
        an amount that is equal to the difference between--
                    ``(A) the weight of the electric batteries and 
                wiring system of the vehicle; and
                    ``(B) the weight of a comparable diesel tank and 
                fueling system.
            ``(2) Maximum weight.--A vehicle propelled exclusively by 
        means of electric battery power may exceed any vehicle weight 
        limit under this section up to a maximum gross vehicle weight 
        of 82,000 pounds.''.
                                 <all>
```