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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This  Exhibit  contains  summary  financial   information   extracted  from  the
Registrant's  unaudited  consolidated  financial statements for the period ended
September  27,  2000 and is  qualified  in its  entirety  by  reference  to such
financial  statements.  This  Exhibit  shall not be deemed filed for purposes of
Section  11 of the  Securities  Act of 1933  and  Section  18 of the  Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise  subject to the  liability of such  Sections,
nor shall it be deemed a part of any other filing which incorporates this report
by reference,  unless such other filing expressly  incorporates  this Exhibit by
reference.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-27-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-27-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           2,120
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,009
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,093
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                60,723
<PP&E>                                          20,928
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,982
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  93,237
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           74,817
<BONDS>                                         51,395
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,349
<OTHER-SE>                                    (41,747)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    93,237
<SALES>                                        166,900
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               166,900
<CGS>                                           45,536
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  158,500
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,578
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,845
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (10,023)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (10,023)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (10,023)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.77)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.77)


</TABLE>
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ERIC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. JOSE LUIS FLORES-GONZALES, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 12-50593

D.C . No. 3:12-c r-03727-LAB M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Larry A. B urns, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 17, 2013 ** B e fore : GOODW IN, WALLAC E, a nd GR AB ER , C irc uit Judge s. Jose Luis Flore s-Gonz a le s a ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt a nd c ha lle nge s the 42-m onth se nte n c e im pose d following his guilty -ple a c onvic tion for be ing a re m ove d a lie n found in the Unite d State s, in viola

tion of 8 U.S.C . § 1326. W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we a ffirm . 

# FIL ED D EC 30 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).Flore s-Gonz a le s c onte nds tha t the distric t

c o urt proc e dura lly

e rre d by (1) fa iling to e xpre ssly

c onside r U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3, a polic y sta

te m e nt c onc e rning

“ de pa rture s ba se d on ina de qua c y of c rim ina l history ;” and (2) using Flore sGonz a le s’ s pre v ious se nte nc e for ille ga l re e ntry rathe r tha n the re le v ant Guide line s range a s a sta rting point for sente nc ing. W e re vie w for pla in e rror, se eUnite d State s v . Vale nc ia-Barragan , 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th C ir. 2010), a nd find none . The distric t c ourt use d the Guide line s range a s the sta rting point in the

se nte nc ing proc e s s, a nd a d e quate ly

e xpla ine d the se nte nc e with re fe re nc e to the18 U.S.C . § 3553(a ) se nte nc ing fa c tors. S e eUnite d State

s v . C arty , 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th C ir. 2008) (e n ba

nc ). Flore s-Gonz a le s a lso c onte nds tha t his se nte nc e is substa

nt ive ly unre a s ona

ble . The distric t c ourt did not a b use its disc re tion in im

posing Flore sGonz a le s’ s se nte nc e . Se eGall v . Unite d State s , 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The a bove -Guide line s se nte nc e is substa ntive ly re a sona b le in light of the

se c tion 3553(a ) se nte nc ing fa c tors a nd the tota lity

of the c irc um sta

nc e s, inc luding Flore sGonz a le s’ s re pe ate d im

m igration viola

tions a nd his fa ilure to be de te rre d by prior se nte nc e s. Se eid . AFFIRM E D.

1 2 - 5 0 5 9 3 2
#### C. C. KESSLER *v.*J. W. HALL.

A note given by an executor to an attorney for counsel in Ms office as executor, is payable by tlie maker personally, and not, *as executor.*Parol evidence of an understanding that it was to be paid out of the testator’s assets only, is not admissible.

*(Hailey v. Wheeler,*4 Jon. 159, *McKay*v. *Royal,*7 lb. 426, *Beaty*v. *Gingles,*8 Ib. 302, cited and approved.)

Debt, tried before Cloud, *J.,*at Eall Term 1869, Rowan court.

The note upon which the action was brought was as follows:

*61“ Six months after elate, with interest from date, we promise to pay James E. Kerr or order, twelve hundred and fifty dollars,, for value received, witness our hands and seals, Nov. 27 1860.”

This was signed and sealed hy the defendant; and the plaintiff was endorsee and purchaser for value.

The defendant offered to prove that the note was given for professional services rendered to defendant as executor of Solomon Hall deceased, and was due from him as executor, and not in his individual capacity, and that the understanding was that said note was to be paid out of the assets of said estate.

This evidence was rejected by the court. Yerdict and judgment for the plaintiff: Appeal by the defendant.

*JB. Crcdge*and *R. A. Caldwell*for the appellant.

*Blackmer & McCorkle, contra.*

Settle, J.

The defence attempted to be set up, discloses the fact that the bond upon which this action is brought, was executed by the defendant to an attorney for advice and assistance in managing the estate of defendant’s testator. Of course then, it is the individual debt of the defendant, and the action is properly brought; had it been brought against him as executor, it could not have been maintained.

It is said in *Hailey*v. Wheeler, 4 Jon. 159, “it is not possible to conceive how a debt of the testator can he created by matter occurring wholly in the executor’s time. If an executor makes an express contract in reference to the property of the estate, as if he employ one to cry the sale .of the property, as auctioneer, this is not a debt of the testator.” The same point is ruled in *McKay & Devane*v. *Royal and wife,*7 Jon. 426, which, like this, was an action to recover for the professional services of the plaintiffs, who, as attorneys, had advised and counselled the executrix.

In a still later case, *Beaty*v. *Gingles, et al. Ex’rs,*8 Jon. *62302, the eases just cited are quoted with approbation, and they folly establish the doctrine that the defendant is personally liable on a contract like the one before us. The evidence offered by the defendant was properly rejected by his Honor. It is a general rule that parol evidence is inadmis-isable to contradict or vary the terms of a written contract; •and while the ordinance of Oct. 18th 1865, and the acts of 1866, ch. 38 and 39 have changed this rule of evidence in certain cases, they have no application to the case before us.

Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.
#### Perkins (Catherine), Respondent, vs. Western Casualty & Surety Company, Appellant.

For the appellant: *Chas. H. Avery*of Antigo.

For the respondent: *Clarence Simon*of Elroy.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 32.2
                                ABLE ENERGY, INC.
    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 Able Energy, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-K for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Christopher P. Westad,
Chief Financial 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:

(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.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Able Energy, Inc. and will be retained by Able Energy, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


Date: September 28, 2004


                            /S/ CHRISTOPHER P. WESTAD
                            -------------------------
                            CHRISTOPHER P. WESTAD
                            CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                           5
<MULTIPLIER>                    1,000
       
<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                  DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                                      5,135
<SECURITIES>                                                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                                               1,677
<ALLOWANCES>                                                    0
<INVENTORY>                                                63,132
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                           72,873
<PP&E>                                                     41,005
<DEPRECIATION>                                             15,470
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                            104,664
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                      34,770
<BONDS>                                                     2,463
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                           0
<PREFERRED>                                                     0
<COMMON>                                                       91
<OTHER-SE>                                                 65,799
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                              104,664
<SALES>                                                   175,665
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                          175,665
<CGS>                                                      93,549
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                              93,549
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                           62,971
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                          2,422
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                            17,096
<INCOME-TAX>                                                6,370
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        10,726
<DISCONTINUED>                                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                 0
<CHANGES>                                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                               10,726
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                1.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                1.20
        

</TABLE>
FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT MAY 18, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 06- 1577 6 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 04-02471 -CV -T -17-MSS SH ARO N W IL DE R, Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant,
ve rs us SEDGW ICK CLAIM S MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., De fendant-Appellee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ (M ay 1 8, 200 7) Be fo re BI RC H , BL A CK

a nd C O X , Ci rc uit

Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: Sh ar on W ild er

appe al s f ro m the fin al jud gm en t of

the dis tr ic t c ourt de ny ing
s u mma ry j u d g me n t t o h e r a n dg r a n t i n g s u mma ry j u d g me n t t o S e d g w i c kC l a i ms2

Ma na ge m en t S er

vic es , In c. (S ed gw ic k) in her ac tio n to re co ve r long -t er m dis ab ili ty be ne fi ts u nde r anE RI SAplan. T he sol e is su e on t his appe al is w he the r the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in gr an tin g Se dgw ic k su m

m ar y j udgm en t ( an d de ny ing W ild er sum m ar y j udgm en t) ba se d up on its dete rm ina tio n th at

S ed gw ic k’ s de nia l of

W ild er ’ s c la im

w as not a rb itr ar y a nd
ca pr ic iou s. Af ter careful r eview, we concl u d e t hat Sedgwick w as properly granted
summ a ry j u d g m e n t f

o r t h e r e a s o n s s t a t e d i n P a r t I V o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s op ini on. (R.1 -3 1 a t 9 -2 2.) AFFIRMED.
**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 SKRM Interactive, Inc. (the “Company”)
      on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      Pericles DeAvila, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§
1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
      the best of my knowledge:





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





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




/s/
                Pericles DeAvilaPericles
                DeAvila, PresidentFebruary
                19, 2008
ATTACHMENT II – REQUIREMENT LIST

Outstanding Product Chemistry And Acute Toxicity Data:

830.1550 Product identity and composition

830.1600 Description of materials used to produce the product

830.1620 Description of production process

830.1650 Description of formulation process

830.1670 Discussion of formation of impurities

830.1700 Preliminary analysis

830.1750 Certified limits

830.1800 Enforcement analytical method

830.6302 Color

830.6303 Physical state

830.6304 Odor

830.6313 Stability to normal and elevated temperatures, metals, and metal ions

830.6314 Oxidizing or reducing action

830.6315 Flammability

830.6316 Explodability

830.6317 Storage stability

830.6319 Miscibility

830.6320 Corrosion characteristics

830.6321 Dielectric breakdown voltage

830.7000 pH

830.7050 UV/Visible absorption

830.7100 Viscosity

830.7200 Melting point/melting range

830.7220 Boiling point/boiling range

830.7300 Density/relative density

830.7370 Dissociation constants in water

830. 7550 Partition coefficient (n-octanol/water) shake flask method

830.7570 Partition coefficient (n-octanol/water), estimation by liquid chromatography

830.7840 Water solubility: Column elution method, shake flask method

830.7860 Water solubility, generator column method

830.7950 Vapor pressure

870.1100 Acute Oral Toxicity

870.1200 Acute dermal toxicity

870.1300 Acute inhalation toxicity

870.2400 Acute eye irritation

870.2500 Acute dermal irritation

870.2600 Skin sensitization
#### SIMON M. SMITHWICK *vs.*ABRAM SHEPHERD.

A promise (not in writing) by an administrator, that he would see a debt of his testator paid, or would pay it, is void under the statute of frauds.

This was an action of assumpsit, tried before Saukdees, J., at the Pali Term, 1856, of Martin Sujierior Court.

Albert 0. Shepherd owned, and carried on, a steam sawmill, near Williamston, and under a contract with the plaintiff, boarded himself and his mill-workmen, among whom -was his son, William Shepherd, at plaintiff’s house. The defendant was the administrator of A. G. Shepherd, who had recently died. In a conversation between the plaintiff, the defendant, and one Hartsook, (who was said to be a trustee of A. G. Shepherd,) concerning the estate, the plaintiff spoke of his account and produced it. Hartsook said the defendant was the administrator and he was the man to pay it; when defendant replied that he would see it paid, or it should be paid. Shortly afterwards he did pay thirty dollars, and the warrant then was issued for the balance, and brought up by appeal.

The plaintiff insisted,

1st. That the promise of the defendant was substituted for the original debt.

2nd. That the defendant’s having property applicable to the debt, and having promised to pay, or see it paid, was an assumpsit which discharged the original debtor, and on which plaintiff might rely. This, with the application of a credit thereto, was a consideration to support the promise.

A verdict was rendered for the plaintiff, subject to the opin*197ion of tbe Court, with, an agreement that, if the Court should be of opinion that the action could not be sustained, a non-suit should be entered.

The Court, being of opinion with the defendant, ordered a nonsuit, from which the plaintiff appealed.

No counsel appeared for the plaintiff in this Court.

Dormell. for defendant.

Battle, J.

The declaration -made by the defendant, that he would see the debt of his intestate paid, or that it should be paid, was, if a promise to pay at all, a special promise within the statute of frauds. Revised Stat, ch. 50, sec. 10, (Rev. Code, ch. 50, sec. 15). It was a promise either “ to answer the debt of another person,” or, by an administrator, *“*to answer damages out of his own estate,” and, therefore, no action could be brought upon it; because it was not in writing and signed as the statute requires.

If the propositions contended for by the plaintiff were sustainable in this case, they would defeat the effect of the statute in every case, by making the promise operate as a substitute of itself, for the original debt. Such a doctrine cannot, for a moment, be upheld.

The judgment of nonsuit was right, and must be affirmed.

Pee. OubiaM. The judgment is affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                                  EXHIBIT 21
                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
             Name                            Jurisdiction of Incorporation
             ----                            -----------------------------
     <S>                                     <C>
     Paisano Publications, Inc.                     California
     Easyriders Franchising, Inc.                   California
     Teresi, Inc.                                   California
     Associated Rodeo Riders on Wheels, Inc.        California
     Easyriders of Columbus, Inc.                   Ohio
     Bros. Club, Inc.                               California
     M&B Restaurants, L.C.                          Texas
     Newriders, Inc.                                Nevada
     Easyriders Licensing, Inc.                     California
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF OCTOBER 2, 1999 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT
OF OPERATIONS FOR THE YEAR ENDED OCTOBER 2, 1999 OF GROVE HOLDINGS LLC AND
SUBSIDIARIES, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-02-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-04-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-02-1999
<CASH>                                          16,864
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  145,366
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (3,095)
<INVENTORY>                                    193,123
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               365,088
<PP&E>                                         253,196
<DEPRECIATION>                                (39,465)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 863,373
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          191,424
<BONDS>                                        459,892
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       115,886
<OTHER-SE>                                    (68,324)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   863,373
<SALES>                                        781,229
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               781,229
<CGS>                                          633,447
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  131,584
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   148
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              42,574
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (26,524)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,535
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (32,059)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (32,059)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
##### 



|                |  |                                                                                                                                                                
|--------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(CABLETEL LOGO) |  | Head Office:
230 Travail Road, Markham, Ontario L3S 3J1 Canada
Tel: (905) 475-1030 Fax: (905) 475-9571
Toll Free: 1-800-268-3231
Website: www.cabletelgroup.com
|               

Exhibit A-1

Certification of Principal Executive Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

I, D. Gregory Walling, President and Chief Executive Officer of Cabletel
Communications Corp. (the Registrant), certifies that to the best of my
knowledge, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
period ended September 30, 2002 of the Registrant (the Report):

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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
Registrant.

/s/  D. Gregory Walling

Name: D. Gregory Walling
Date: November 11, 2002

37