alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 BarPoint.com, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jeffrey W. Sass, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

          (1) The Report fully complies withthe requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

          (2) The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

| Dated: May 14, 2003 |                                        |   |
|---------------------|---------------------------------------------|--------|
|                |                                        |   |
|                | /s/ JEFFREY W. SASS                         |   |
|                |                                             |   |
|                | **Jeffrey W. Sass Chief Executive Officer** |   |
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

 36

 38

 40

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲

▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 500

18 12 06 00

06/19

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 19 Jun 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.41 N 76.30 W Meters AGL
DISMISS and Opinion Filed November 14, 2023 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-23-00166-CV 

IN THE INTEREST OF J.A.D., A MINOR CHILD 

On Appeal from the 401st Judicial District Court 

Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 401-54784-2021 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Pedersen, III, and Garcia 

Opinion by Justice Garcia 

Appellant’s brief in this case is overdue. On July 10, 2023, we notified 

appellant his brief was overdue and directed him to file his brief within ten days. 

We cautioned appellant that failure to do so would result in the dismissal of the 

appeal without further notice. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3(c). By orders 

dated July 24, 2023, August 28, 2023, and September 14, 2023, we extended the 

time for appellant to file his brief until October 2, 2023. On October 4, 2023, we 

received but did not file a brief appellant tendered to the Court. The same day, we 

notified appellant that the Court would not consider the late brief unless appellant 

filed, within ten days, a motion for extension of time to file the brief. To date, 
 –2– 

appellant has not filed such a motion nor otherwise corresponded with the Court 

regarding the status of the brief received on October 4, 2023. 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See id. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3(c). 

230166F.P05 

 

/Dennise Garcia/ 

DENNISE GARCIA 

JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

IN THE INTEREST OF J.A.D., A 

MINOR CHILD 

No. 05-23-00166-CV 

 On Appeal from the 401st Judicial 

District Court, Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 401-54784-

2021. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Garcia. 

Justices Partida-Kipness and 

Pedersen, III participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is 

DISMISSED. 

Judgment entered November 14, 2023
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

LEANN EVANS,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 164 WAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 13th day of September, 2022

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 12 (a)
                           J. C. Penney Company, Inc.
                          and Consolidated Subsidiaries

       Computation of Ratios of Available Income to Combined Fixed Charges
                    and Preferred Stock Dividend Requirement


<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 

                                                53 Weeks               52 Weeks Ended
                                                 Ended     ---------------------------------------
($ Millions)                                    01/31/98   01/25/97  01/27/96  01/28/95   01/29/94
                                                --------   --------  --------  --------   --------
<S>                                             <C>        <C>       <C>       <C>        <C>    
Income from continuing operations               $   882    $   853   $ 1,285   $ 1,646    $ 1,498
    (before income taxes, before
    capitalized interest, but after
    preferred stock dividend)

Fixed charges

Interest (including capitalized interest) on:

    Operating leases                                180        110       102        95         97
    Short term debt                                 121        102       129        92         43
    Long term debt                                  527        312       254       225        246
    Capital leases                                    7          6         6         7          9
    Other, net                                       (5)        14         1        (1)         0

                                                -------    -------   -------   -------    -------
Total fixed charges                                 830        544       492       418        395

Preferred stock dividend, before taxes               40         46        48        50         52

Combined fixed charges and preferred
                                                -------    -------   -------   -------    -------
    stock dividend requirement                      870        590       540       468        447

Total available income                          $ 1,752    $ 1,443   $ 1,825   $ 2,114    $ 1,945
                                                =======    =======   =======   =======    =======

Ratio of available income to combined
    fixed charges and preferred stock
    dividend requirement                            2.0        2.4       3.4       4.5        4.3
                                                =======    =======   =======   =======    =======
</TABLE>




The interest cost of the LESOP notes guaranteed by the Company is not included
in fixed charges above.
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of SCPIE Holdings Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:

(i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008 (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.



|                   |  |  |  |                                          
|------------------ |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------
|Dated: May 8, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/ Robert B. Tschudy                    
|                   |  |  |  | Robert B. Tschudy Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,
and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any
general incorporation language in such filing.
# Br ak e Energy/Tra ction W ork W eigh te d Using Pr oposed W eigh ting for A t o B

Certific at ion

Engine Ra te d Po we r Br ak e

Energy/ Po sitiv e Br ak e

Energy/ Po sitiv e Dis ta nce

Based Pr e
- tr ans

Dis ta nce Based Cummins

Br aking Energy/eFTP Po we r (kW) Po sitiv e

Wo rk Po sitiv e

Wo rk We igh te d Based

We igh ting Based

We igh ting Energy/eFTP

Po sitiv e Engine W ork

339 0.52 0.39 0.44 0.42 0.49 201 0.49 0.36 0.32 0.30 0.35 149 0.42 0.32 0.25 0.23 0.22
| **Royalties And Licenses (Schedule Of Royalty-Related Assets) (Details) (USD $)In Millions, unless otherwise specified** | Dec. 31, 2013 | Mar. 31, 2013 |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------|---------------|
| **Royalty-Related Assets**                                                                                               |          |          |
| Royalty-related assets                                                                                                   | $ 122         | $ 156         |
| Other Current Assets [Member]                                                                                            |          |          |
| **Royalty-Related Assets**                                                                                               |          |          |
| Royalty-related assets                                                                                                   | 56            | 63            |
| Other assets                                                                                                             |          |          |
| **Royalty-Related Assets**                                                                                               |          |          |
| Royalty-related assets                                                                                                   | $ 66          | $ 93          |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Royalty Related Assets Current And Noncurrent
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**ea_RoyaltyRelatedAssetsCurrentAndNoncurrent**Namespace Prefix:**ea_**Data Type:**xbrli:monetaryItemType**Balance Type:**debit**Period Type:**instant |
| X                                                                                                                                                       |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Details**Name:**ea_RoyaltyRelatedAssetsLineItems**Namespace Prefix:**ea_**Data Type:**xbrli:stringItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-41338

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LUIS ALBERTO ARIAS-LOPEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:10-CR-595-2

Before BENAVIDES, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Luis Alberto AriasLopez 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). Arias-Lopez has filed a response. We have reviewed

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well

as Arias-Lopez’s response. 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 21, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 10-41338 Document: 00511640675 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/21/2011
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

January 8, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
134975 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 134975 COA: 279253 Kent CC: 06-003680-FC MARLON RASHAWN McCALEB, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e application for leave to appeal the August 16, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

p1217 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

January 8, 2008

Clerk
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 Park Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14,
2003, (the Report), I, David A. Remijas, President and 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, as amended; 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/ David A. Remijas                  | 
| |  | ------------------------------------- | 
| |  | President and Chief Executive Officer | 
| |  | November 14, 2003                     | 

16

---
#### STEINBERG & CO. v. JAMESON.

No. 2318.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Beaumont.

Dec. 22, 1932.

Alfred Du Perier, of Beaumont, for appellant.

David E. O’Fiel, of Beaumont, for appellee.

WALKER, C. J.

This ease originated in justice court, was regularly appealed to the’ county court at law of Jefferson county, and is before us by appeal by Steinberg & Co. from a judgment, upon a jury’s verdict, in the sum of $179.39, against appellant and its surety and in favor of appellee, L. Jameson.

Appellant assigns error that the court erred in permitting appellee to amend his pleading in county court at law by stating his cause of action orally, and that the verdict of the jury was without support in the evidence, and against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. These conclusions are overruled. As the case originated in justice court, the parties had the right to plead orally. The verdict of the jury followed literally appel-lee’s testimony.

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 11

                   COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER COMMON SHARE


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                      December 31
                                    ----------------------------------------------
                                        2000             1999             1998
                                        ----             ----             ----
<S>                                 <C>              <C>              <C>
Net Income (Loss)                   $  1,118,805     $    300,553     $ (1,017,170)
                                    ============     ============     ============



Weighted Average of Common
 Shares Outstanding                    1,604,163        1,604,163        1,604,163

Dilutive Effect of Stock Option           70,824           63,021
                                    ------------     ------------     ------------

                                       1,674,163        1,667,184        1,604,163
                                    ============     ============     ============

Basic Net Income (Loss)
Per Common Share                    $        .70     $        .19     $       (.63)
                                    ============     ============     ============

Dilutive Net Income (Loss)
Per Common Share                    $        .67     $        .18     $       (.63)
                                    ============     ============     ============
</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


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




In connection with the quarterly report of Wilhelmina International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John P. Murray, Principal Financial 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 my knowledge:




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 the Company.




November 15, 2010

/s/ John P. MurrayName:
John P. MurrayTitle:
Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer and

Principal Accounting Officer)
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of SCPIE Holdings Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:

(i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2007 (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.



|                        |  |  |  |                        
|----------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Dated: November 7, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ Donald J. Zuk      
|                        |  |  |  | Donald J. Zuk          
|                        |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,
and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any
general incorporation language in such filing.
#### CARRE v. STATE.

No. 16930.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 17, 1934.

Cecil C. Rotsch, Asst. Or. Dist Atty., of Port Worth, and Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

Upon conviction for a misdemeanor, a fine of $50 was assessed against appellant.

While it appears that notice of appeal was given, there is nothing to show that said notice was recorded in the minutes of the court as required by law. See article 827, C. C. P. This should appear from a certificate of the clerk, but in the present instance it merely appears that the instrument containing notice of appeal was filed. The appeal must be dismissed. Rodgers v. State, 85 Tex. Cr. R. 421, 213 S. W. 637; Wheeler v. State, 118 Tex. Cr. R. 358, 42 S.W.(2d) 69.

The appeal is dismissed. Appellant is granted 15 days from this date in which to perfect the record.

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.
# OAR Box 1818

Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 26 ) ll-C-2 3 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 11/6/2008 3:12:44

PM Sheet 26 of 79 P. 1P. 2 

## rr-c- 2 3

JU L 3 j 1987

Mr
. Ji mJ
. Tozz i Multinationa l Busines s Services , Inc . 133 3 Ne w Hampshir e Avenue , N W Washington , D C 2003 6 '•NVIRONMfcNTA L HROlKHlO N AGENC Y AU15 1 8 198 7 GFINTRAS
. DOCKL T

Dea r Mr . Tozzi : Thi s i s in respons e t o you r lette r o f Jul y16 , 158 7 concerning our consultatio n wit h th e Nationa l Highwa yTraffi c Safet yAdministratio n (NHTSA ) o n the safetyrelate d aspect s o f onboard refueling contro l systems . I n your lette r yo u cite d th e NHTS Alette r o f Jun e 11 , 198 7 presenting th e Dep^rt^en t o f Transportation' s view s o n th e safet yaspect s o f the rulemaking envisione d b

ySPA . Yo u particularl yhighlighte d th e need fo r EP At o respon

d t o the NHTS Astaf f comment s o n ou r draf t safet y analysis . VJ e agre e wit h the need fo r EF At o respon

d t o th

e auestion s raised b

yNHTSA . W e hav e don e thi s throug h revision s t o our draf t safet yanalysi s dealing wit h NHTSA' s comments . Enclose d pleas e fin

d a cop yo f our revise d repor t fo r you r review . A s yo u know , NHTS Aindicate d in no technologica l breakthrough s ar e develo p saf e it s lette r it s necessar

yt o onboar d systems , s o lon g a s sufficien t provided . In recen t submission s t o Congressma n bot h tne Automobil e Importer s o f Vehicl e Manufacturer s Associatio n tha t saf e onboar d system s ca n leadtime . AI Astate d tha t "whil e belie f tha t desiq n an d leadtim p i s Joh n Dingell , Americ a (AIA ) an

d th e .Moto r (MViMA ) state d thei r belief s b e designe d give n adequat e w e thin k onboar d system s ca n be designe d t o be safel yincorporate d adequat e leadtime mus t be allowed. . "addition s t o fue l system s d o no t nee d t o compromis e safety , s o lon g a ^ manufacturer s ar e "give n sufficien t lead-time ensur e n o compromise. " int o a moto r vehicle , " MVM Aagree s tha t I I t oP. 3

Thus , EP

Abelieve s tha t the ke yissu e relate d t o safet yi s tha t o f leadtime . W e hav e indicate d thi s i n ou r onboar d proposal , an

d full yexpec t t o receiv e substantia l commen t in thi s area . A s w e hav e als o indicate d in ou r proposal , becaus e o f th e importanc e o f th e safet yQuestion , we pla n t o reprono;?* ? th e rul e t o asses s an ychange d circumstance s afte r w e receiv e comment s fro

mth e Departmen t o f Transportation . Than k yo u fo r you r comment s o n thi s matter . Sinc e v e ar e nowi n a forraal rulemaking period , an yfurthe r comment s yo u wis h t o mak e relate d t o ou r proposa l shoul d als o be subriitt^ ? t o th e publi c docket . Theywil l the n h e full yconsidere d alon g wit h othe r comment s w o receive . Sincerely , jDONB.CLm 0 * J . Crai g Potte r Assistan t Administrato r Offic e o f Ai r & Radiatio n Enclosur e cc : Docke t A-87-1 1