alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.1

     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In  connection  with the  filing  of the  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the
Quarter  Ended  June 30,  2003 (the  "Report")  by Travis  Boats & Motors,  Inc.
("Registrant"), each of the undersigned hereby certifies that:

1.   The Report fully complies with the  requirements  of section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and

2.   The information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Registrant.



                            /s/ Mark T. Walton
                            ----------------------------------------------------
                            Mark T. Walton, President



                            /s/ Michael B. Perrine
                            ---------------------------------------------------
                            Michael B. Perrine, Chief Financial Officer,
                            Secretary and Treasurer

Date:  August 14, 2003
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 09**  **- 8212** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. MARY KING, a/k/a Kitty , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the East ern District of Virginia , at Richmond
. Henry E. Hudson , District Judge. ( 3:04

- cr - 00259

- HEH

- 4 )

Submitted : April 29, 2010 Decided: May 3, 2010

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Affirmed by un published pe r curiam opinion
. Mary King, Appellant Pro Se. Olivia N. Hawkins, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Mary King appeals the district cour t ’ s order finding her ineligible for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) (2006). In her informal appellate brief, King failed to challenge the district court’s reason supporting the denial of relief. King therefore has forfeited appellate r eview of the eligibility issue. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (“The Court will limit its review to the issues raised in the informal brief.”). Accordingly, we affirm
. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presente d in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998             SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          20,858                  20,858
<SECURITIES>                                     4,178                   4,178
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,250                  20,250
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,289                   1,289
<INVENTORY>                                      3,595                   3,595
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                50,186                  50,186
<PP&E>                                          37,622                  37,622
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  91,699                  91,699
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,197                  13,197
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                           163                     163
<OTHER-SE>                                      77,567                  77,567
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    91,699                  91,699
<SALES>                                         21,168                  62,811
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                21,168                  62,811
<CGS>                                           15,047                  44,840
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   22,340                  66,082
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (331)                 (1,043)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (841)                 (2,228)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       208                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,049)                 (2,228)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,049)                 (2,228)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.06)                  (0.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.06)                  (0.14)
        

</TABLE>
Order entered September 25, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-00778-CV

IN RE GEORGE GILLESPIE, PETER HENRIKSON AND IRA SHAPIRO, 

TRUSTEE, IRA SHAPIRO FAMILY TRUST (2012), Relators

Original Proceeding from the 44th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-09846

ORDER

Before Justices Whitehill, Pedersen, III, and Carlyle

Before the Court is relators’ August 28, 2020 petition for writ of mandamus. 

In the petition, relators challenge the trial court’s “Order Regarding Defendant 

Constant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration, Plaintiffs’ Special Exception and

Staying/Abating the Proceedings” and “Order Regarding Pending Discovery 

Requests.” Real parties also challenge the same order regarding the motion to 

compel arbitration to the extent that the court denied arbitration with respect to

certain parties, pursuant to their interlocutory appeal pending under cause number
05-20-00734-CV. We conclude that these proceedings should be decided together. 

See In re Valero Energy Corp., 968 S.W.2d 916, 916–17 (Tex. 1998).

Accordingly, on the Court’s own motion, we ORDER cause number 05-20-

00778-CV CONSOLIDATED into cause number 05-20-00734-CV. We DIRECT 

the Clerk of this Court to remove all documents from cause number 05-20-00778-

CV and refile them in cause number 05-20-00734-CV and to treat cause number

05-20-00778-CV as a closed case. We ORDER that all future filings bear only 

cause number 05-20-00734-CV. All current deadlines in cause number 05-20-

00734-CV remain in place.

We request that the real parties in interest and respondent file a response to 

the petition for writ of mandamus, if any, within TWENTY DAYS of this order. 

In accordance with this consolidation order, that response should be filed in cause 

number 05-20-00734-CV.

We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to send a copy of this order to all 

parties, the trial judge, and the Dallas District Court Clerk. 

/s/ CORY L. CARLYLE

JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 99.2

                           DIAMOND HOME SERVICES, INC.
             INCREASES STOCK REPURCHASE PROGRAM TO 1,000,000 SHARES


Woodstock, IL (August 12, 1997) - Diamond Home Services, Inc. (Nasdaq: DHMS)
today announced that the number of shares of the Company's common stock that it
is authorized to purchase has been increased by the Board of Directors from
500,000 to 1,000,000.

Share purchases are authorized to be made by the Company from time to time in
open market or privately negotiated transactions as, in the opinion of
management, market conditions warrant.  The repurchased shares will be added to
the Company's treasury shares and will be available for general corporate
purposes.  Since the Company's announcement on April 30, 1997, to purchase up to
500,000 shares, the Company has purchased a total of 452,300 shares at prices
ranging between $7 5/8 and $11.00.

"The decision to purchase stock and further increase the level of the stock
repurchase program underscores management's confidence in the Company's
leadership position in the home improvement industry and is another opportunity
to continue to build shareholder value for the future," C. Stephen Clegg,
Chairman, President and CEO stated.

Diamond Home Services, Inc. is a leading national marketer and contractor of
installed home improvement products, including roofing systems, gutters, doors
and fencing.  The Company markets its home improvement products and services
directly to consumers primarily under the "SEARS" name.  Through its finance
subsidiary, Marquise Financial Services, Inc., the Company also offers financing
to its customers.  The Company has 74 sales offices located in major cities
across the U.S., providing the Company with a presence in markets covering
approximately 80% of the owner-occupied households in the U.S.
Guida 333 Petition Ammendment **Submitted electronically** November 6, 2015 U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington, DC 20590 RE: Am endment to Guida Surveying, Inc. Petition for Exemption from Certain Federal Aviation Regulations according to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 Dear Sir or Madam: Guida Surveying, Inc. (GSI) is applying for an exemption from the Code of Federal Regulations . The petition’s docket ID on Regulations.gov is FAA

2015

- 5300

- 0001
. The exemption would permit commercial operation of a small unmanned aircraft system (UAS) in the national air s pace (NAS) as regulated by the for Aerial topographical survey and mapping, Aerial data collection for 3D modeling, Aerial inspe ction of job sites, including home constructions sites, and equipment and Aerial data collection for photogrammetry as well as assisting in public safety. GSI is requesting an additional aircraft be added to the existing petition.

 DJI Inspire 1 The Inspire 1 has been approved for numerous operators through the 333 exemption process, two being Micro Drone Vision, Inc. Exemption No. 11318; and Celestial Imaging, LLC Exemption No. 11359. The manual to the aircraft is currently on file with the FAA. GSI confirms that no requested conditions or limitations from the original petition are changed. All operations of the Inspire 1 will be in full compliance with the terms and condition of the Exemption.Guida 333 Petition Ammendment

Should you have any questions, please contact Brian Dyer at Brian.Dyer@RemotePilotSystems.com
. Thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely, Brian Dyer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
     Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company Annual Report on for 10-K for the year
     ended December 31, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
     such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                              0000076063
<NAME>                             PANHANDLE EASTERN PIPE LINE
<MULTIPLIER>                       1000

<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                  DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                        0
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 106000
<ALLOWANCES>                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                   38200
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              192300
<PP&E>                                        2733900
<DEPRECIATION>                                1776000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                1906100
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         919300
<BONDS>                                       299200
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                      1000
<OTHER-SE>                                    500000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  1906100
<SALES>                                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              534100
<CGS>                                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 253700
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              85100
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            73000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               201600
<INCOME-TAX>                                  48300
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           80300
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
     <EXTRAORDINARY>                          0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                  80300
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 0<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 0<F1>
<FN>
<F1>Not meaningful since Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company is a wholly-owned
subsidiary.
</FN>


</TABLE>
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed February 15, 2023

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D23

- 0076 Lower Tribunal No. 22

- 6950

________________ 

### Panzegna Wood , Appellant,

vs. 

### Alexander Wood, et al. , Appellee s

.

An a ppeal from the Circuit Court for Miami

- Dade County, Reemberto Diaz , Judge. Panzegna Wood, i n proper person

. Lampar iello Law Group LLP, and Joshua Christensen (Royal Palm Beach) , for appellee Alexander Wood.

Before HENDON, MILLER, and LOBREE, JJ. PER CURIAM

. ON MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL2 Appellant, Panzegna Wood, challenges a nonfinal order denying a motion to vacate an order of dismissal and the denial of rehearing on the

same. Because appellant failed to timely appeal the underlying order denying relief, the motion for rehearing did not toll rendition, an d the order denying rehearing is not independently reviewable, we lack jurisdiction to adjudicate this appeal. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(4) (“ Orders disposing of motions for rehearing or motions that suspend rendition are not reviewable separately from a review of the final order .

. . . ” ); Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(5) (“Motions for rehearing directed to [orders entered on an authorized and timely motion for relief from judgment] are not authorized under these rules and therefore will not toll the time f or filing a notice of appeal.”); New Day Miami, LLC v. Beach Devs

. , LLC , 225 So. 3d 372 , 375

– 7 7 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017 ) ( holding no jurisdiction to review trial court’s order denying relief pursuant to rule 1.540(b) because appellant’s successive motion seeking rehearing did not toll time for filing notice of appeal) ; Lawrence v. Marina Tower of Turnberry Isle Condo. Ass’n, Inc. , 323 So. 3d 271, 272 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (finding lack of jurisdiction where appellant’s notice of appeal was not filed within thirty da ys of the rendition of order discharging lis pendens
and appellant’s motion to vacate order did not toll rendition of same) ; Suntrust Bank v. Hodges , 12 So. 3d 1278, 1280 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)3 (dismissing appeal where appellant sought relief from order denying motion for rehearing on its motion for relief from final judgment, which did not toll the running of thirty day period to file notice of appeal); Perez v. Saima Grp. Corp. , 347 So. 3d 421, 422 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (“Because motions for rehearing dire cted toward orders denying rule 1.540(b) motions are generally not authorized, such a motion does not toll the time period to appeal the underlying order denying the rule 1.540(b) motion, and an order denying such a rehearing motion is not separately revie wable from the order denying the rule 1.540(b) motion.”) ; Frantz v. Moore , 772 So. 2d 581, 581 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (same)

. Appeal dismissed.
ADDENDUM
      TO LEASE

    


    POWDERHORN
      PROPERTIES, LLC

    


    COMMERCIAL
      LEASE AGREEMENT

     

    This
      Commercial Lease Agreement (“Agreement”) is made and effective this 1st
      day of
JUNE
      2008,
      by and
      between POWDERHORN
      PROPERTIES, LLC.,
      an
      Idaho Limited Liability Company, (hereinafter “Owner”) and ENERGENX,
      INC.
      (hereinafter “Tenant”), upon the following terms and conditions:

    


    1. LEASED
      PREMISES. The
      Owner
      hereby leases to the Tenant the real property and improvements located at
6200
      East Commerce Loop Post Falls, Idaho 83854.
      The
      real property and improvements are collectively referred to as the
“Premises”.

    


    2. TERM
      OF LEASE: The
      term
      of this Lease shall be for 12
      months
      commencing on JUNE
      1, 2008
      and
      ending on MAY
      31, 2009.

    


    3. RENT:
      The
      monthly rental amount will be $2,900.00
      per
      month and the Tenant shall pay one lump sum of $34,800.00
      in
      advance and OWNER will waive the Security Deposit.

    


    4. All
      Terms
& Conditions of the original Lease dated APRIL
      1, 2004,
      shall
      be in effect and binding.


    
      
        
        

      

      
        
        

        
          

        

      

      
        
        

      

    


    Page
      2

    Signature
      Page

     

    IN
      WITNESS of our mutual understanding and consent, we have signed this Agreement
      on the dates indicated below.

     

    OWNER:                                           TENANT:

     

    
      	 	 	 	 
	/s/
              Donald L.
              Poteet	 	 	/s/
              Gary
              Bedini
	
              
                

              

              Donald L. Poteet, Managing Member

              POWDERHORN PROPERTIES, LLC

              EIN 82-0511561

            	 	 	
              
                

              

              Gary Bedini, President & CEO

              ENERGENX, INC.

              EIN 82-0516297

            


    

     

    
      
        	6/3/08	6/3/08
	Date	Date
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2377 Referred in House (RFH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2377

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 7, 2018

     Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
at 200 West 2nd Street in Dayton, Ohio, as the ``Walter H. Rice Federal 
                Building and United States Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. WALTER H. RICE FEDERAL BUILDING AND UNITED STATES 
              COURTHOUSE.

    (a) In General.--The Federal building and United States courthouse 
located at 200 West 2nd Street in Dayton, Ohio, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Walter H. Rice Federal Building and United States 
Courthouse''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal building and 
United States courthouse referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed 
to be a reference to the ``Walter H. Rice Federal Building and United 
States Courthouse''.

            Passed the Senate June 7, 2018.

            Attest:

                                                JULIE E. ADAMS,

                                                             Secretary.
```
SERVED: MARCH 12, 2015 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

NORTHEASTERNAVIATION CORPORATION 

DOCKET NO. FAA-2015-0206 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

~ : . . 

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2011EA11 0045) has been assigned 

to Administrative Law Judge J.E. Sullivan. All future pleadings and other communications 

regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing Docket, and the other 

persons on the attached Service List. 

~~~0/: . /' 

Ro · e A. Yoder/_,./ 

Chief Administrative L~w Ju ge 

Attachment - Service List 
SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0001 

Evelyn D. Sahr, Respondent's Counsel 

Eckert, Seamans, Cherin, & Mellot, LLC 

1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

12th Floor 

Washington, D.C. 20006 

TEL: 202-659-6622 

FAX: 202-259-6699 

ONE COPY 

Daniel P. Kohlmeyer, Complainant's Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Regional Counsel, Eastern Region 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

TEL: 718-553-3266 

FAX: 718-995-5699 

Hon. J.E. Sullivan, Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-6941 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Docket No. F AA-2015-0206 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

-2-
N PDES Comments George Robinson
to: Jack Faulk 12/07/2009 04:04 PM Cc: Virginia Garelick, Jennifer Chan, "Bob Hays", "Bob Spencer", "Fred Ri os", "Rod Gabehart", "Sherman Takatori" Show Details

Jack, A ttached are our comments regarding the last conference call on BAT requirements. Thanks. George Robinson Idaho State Dept of Agriculture Phone: (208) 332-8593 Fax: (208) 334-3547

<<Idaho comments for BAT requirements.doc>> Page 1 of 1 N PDES Comments

5/11/2010 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\ j faulk\Local Settin g s\Tem p \notesFCBCEE\~web1488.htm
<PAGE>

                                                             Exhibit 21

                             List of Subsidiaries


Subsidiary                                           State of Incorporation
----------                                          -------------------------

 1.    Paragon Nurses Registry, Inc.                        New York

 2.    Star Registry, Inc.                                  New York

 3.    Amserv Healthcare, Inc.                              Delaware

 4.    Amserv Healthcare of New Jersey, Inc.                Delaware

 5.    Amserv Healthcare of Ohio, Inc.                      Delaware

 6.    Amserv Medical Products, Inc.                        Delaware

 7.    Star Multi Care Services of Florida, Inc.            Florida

 8.    Star Multi Care Services, Inc.                       Delaware

 9.    EFCC Acquisition Corp.                               New York

                                     -34-