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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                             582
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      232
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   914
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,769
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,176
<BONDS>                                            500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           719
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2,052)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,769
<SALES>                                          5,424
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,424
<CGS>                                            3,654
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,084
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (1,583)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 485
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,562)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,562)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,562)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.28)
        

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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                            2,868
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     7,680
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      0
<PP&E>                                          508,124
<DEPRECIATION>                                   48,045
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  487,818
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 0
<BONDS>                                         218,296
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                          23
<COMMON>                                             86
<OTHER-SE>                                      212,935
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    487,818
<SALES>                                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 53,315
<CGS>                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    26,234
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               14,782
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       0
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               7,298
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    (358)
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                      6,940
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       .89
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       .88
        


</TABLE>
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### OCT 1 1997 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

BOBBY E. LUCKY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. No. 97-6161 STEVE HARGETT, LARRY FIELDS, and THE DAILY OKLAHOMAN, Defendants-Appellees. (D.C. No. CIV-96-1810) (W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BALDOCK, MCKAY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges. **
Plaintiff Bobby E. Lucky, appearing pro se, filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of his constitutional rights. The district court dismissed the action without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s orders1 After filing his opening brief, Plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of mandamus.

We do not engage in mandamus review where we can exercise the same review in a contemporaneous appeal. Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp. , 460 U.S. 1, 9 n.6 (1992). Therefore, Plaintiff is not entitled to mandamus relief, and his petition is dismissed. 2 directing the payment of an initial partial filing fee. Plaintiff appealed the dismissal. 1 Our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the district court’s decision for abuse of discretion. Mobley v. McCormick , 40 F.3d 337, 340 (10th Cir. 1994). We affirm. On November 12, 1996, the magistrate judge issued an order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) directing Plaintiff to pay an initial partial filing fee of $28.68. Plaintiff failed to comply with the order. On December, 6, 1996, the magistrate judge issued a second order granting Plaintiff until December 26, 1996 to pay the filing fee. Plaintiff filed objections to the magistrate judge’s December 6, 1996, order, asserting that the partial filing fee was based on false information submitted by Oklahoma state prison officials. The district court overruled the objections and dismissed the complaint without2 Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is also denied. 3 prejudice on April 29, 1997, for failure to pay the filing fee. Under these circumstances, we find no abuse of discretion. 2 Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.

Entered for the Court,

Bobby R. Baldock Circuit Judge
```

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 163 (Tuesday, October 7, 2008)]
[Daily Digest]
[Page D1241]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

Committee Meetings
WORKERS' RETIREMENT SECURITY--IMPACT OF FINANCIAL CRISIS
Committee on Education and Labor: Held a hearing on the Impact of the 
Financial Crisis on Workers' Retirement Security. Testimony was heard 
from Peter Orszag, Director, CBO; and public witnesses.
AIG BAILOUT--CAUSES AND EFFECTS
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform: Held a hearing on the 
Causes and Effects of the AIG Bailout. Testimony was heard from Lynn E. 
Turner, former Chief Accountant, SEC; Eric R. Dinallo, Superintendent, 
Insurance Department, New York State; the following former Chief 
Executive Officers of AIG: Robert B. Willumstad; and Martin J. 
Sullivan.
```
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 18

- 00685

- CR

CODY CALLISON
v. THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the 94th District Court of Nueces County , Texas Trial Cause No. 17FC

- 3677C

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on
appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion

. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
April 18, 2019
<PAGE>   1



                                                                      EXHIBIT 11


                            MITCHAM INDUSTRIES, INC.
                        STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF LOSS
                                    PER SHARE
                 (IN THOUSANDS EXCEPT SHARE AND PER SHARE DATA)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                          THREE MONTHS ENDED                  SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                                               JULY 31,                           JULY 31,
                                                      ---------------------------       ---------------------------
                                                         2000            1999               2000            1999
                                                      ----------       ----------       ----------       ----------

<S>                                                   <C>              <C>              <C>              <C>
COMPUTATION OF BASIC LOSS
  PER COMMON SHARE:

Net loss                                              $     (950)      $   (2,092)      $   (1,743)      $   (3,334)
                                                      ----------       ----------       ----------       ----------

Weighted average number of common
     shares outstanding                                9,191,000        9,551,000        9,315,000        9,550,000

Loss per common share                                 $    (0.10)      $    (0.22)      $    (0.19)      $    (0.35)
                                                      ==========       ==========       ==========       ==========


COMPUTATION OF LOSS PER COMMON SHARE
  ASSUMING DILUTION:

Net loss                                              $     (950)      $   (2,092)      $   (1,743)      $   (3,334)
                                                      ----------       ----------       ----------       ----------

Weighted average number of common shares outstanding   9,191,000        9,551,000        9,315,000        9,550,000


Net effect of dilutive stock options and warrants
   based on the treasury stock method, using
   the average market price                                  -                -                -                -
                                                      ----------       ----------       ----------       ----------

Common shares outstanding assuming dilution            9,191,000        9,551,000        9,315,000        9,550,000
                                                      ==========       ==========       ==========       ==========
Loss per common share assuming dilution               $    (0.10)      $    (0.22)      $    (0.19)      $    (0.35)
                                                      ==========       ==========       ==========       ==========

</TABLE>
* 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. 00-11193 

Conference Calendar

 

JOHNNY E. VALDERAS,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS

DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:99-CV-1009-Y

--------------------

February 13, 2001

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Johnny E. Valderas, Texas prisoner # 499117, filed in the

district court a pleading styled as a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition,

raising claims which attacked the validity of his continued

incarceration and claims challenging his being forced to work at

hard labor at the prison without compensation. The district

court correctly treated the former claims as arising under 28

U.S.C. § 2254 and the latter claims as arising under 42 U.S.C. 
No. 00-11193

-2-

§ 1983. See Patton v. Jefferson Corr. Ctr., 136 F.3d 458, 460

(5th Cir. 1998). It dismissed the 28 U.S.C. § 2254 claims as

time-barred, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) and dismissed the 42

U.S.C. § 1983 claims under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B).

Valderas now seeks a certificate of appealability (“COA”) to

appeal the dismissal as time-barred of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254

claims and challenges the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

claims.

Valderas renews his argument that the respondent’s failure

to release him mandatory supervision violates his due-process and

equal-protection rights. Because he has failed to show that

reasonable jurists would find debatable whether the district

court erred in dismissing these claims as time-barred, COA is

DENIED as to Valderas’ 28 U.S.C. § 2254 claims. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 584 (2000).

Valderas also renews his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims that the

being forced to work without compensation violates the Eighth

Amendment, the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), and the

Thirteenth Amendment. The Eighth Amendment claim is wholly

without merit because Valderas has not made any allegation that

prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his physical

condition in assigning his work detail. See Mendoza v. Lynaugh,

989 F.2d 191, 195 (5th Cir. 1993). Even if it is assumed that

FLSA coverage extends to inmates, Valderas’ FLSA claim fails

because his sentence included the requirement that he work at

hard labor. See Watson v. Graves, 909 F.2d 1549, 1553 n.7 (5th

Cir. 1990); Wendt v. Lynaugh, 841 F.2d 629, 620 (5th Cir.. 1988);
No. 00-11193

-3-

Tex. Civ. Stat. art. 6166x (now repealed). Valderas’ claim that

his forced labor constitutes involuntary servitude in violation

of the Thirteenth Amendment claim fails for the same reason. See

Watson, 909 F.2d at 1552; Wendt, 841 F.2d at 620. Accordingly,

the district court’s judgment on the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims is

AFFIRMED.

COA DENIED; JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
#### O’Neil, Plaintiff and Respondent, vs. Russell, Defendant: Hartford Exchange Bank and another, Garnishees; Sullivan, Administratrix, Intervenor, Appellant.

*December 7, 1928*

January *8, 1929.*

*12The cause was submitted for the appellant on the brief of *Sawyer & Gehl*of Hartford, and for the respondent on that of /. *C. Russell*of Hartford.

Stevens, J.

The defendant Russell testified that he had carried his checking account in the name of his wife upon the advice of the cashier of the garnishee bank. This is not denied by the cashier. It therefore appears that this cashier knew that the defendant Russell was carrying his checking account in the name of Elizabeth Russell at the time that the cashier, acting on behalf of the bank, denied liability in the garnishee action. It follows that the bank has retained and used the money knowing it was subject to garnishment. If, as contended by the bank, counsel for both parties had agreed that the fund might be retained by the bank until the court determined to whom it belonged, that would not relieve the bank from liability to pay interest on the fund which it had retained and used during the progress of this litigation, knowing that it belonged to defendant Russell.

Under the rule of *Eau Claire Nat. Bank v. Chippewa Valley Bank,*124 Wis. 520, 528, 102 N. W. 1068, the bank was liable for interest on the fund garnisheed from the date of the service of garnishee process upon it. It follows that *13the court erroneously struck out the provision requiring the bank to pay interest; that this order must be reversed, and that the provision requiring the bank to pay interest must be reinstated in the judgment.

*By the Court.*— So ordered.
**Exhibit32**

# **CERTIFICATION**

Pursuant to****18 U.S.C. 1350, the undersigned ChiefExecutive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of Canterbury ParkHolding Corporation (the “Company”) herby certify that:

(1)          The accompanyingquarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period June 30, 2006 fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

(2)          The informationcontained in the accompanying Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|                        | **CANTERBURY  PARK HOLDING CORPORATION**     |
|------------------------|----------------------------------------------|
| ** **             |                                         |
| Dated: August 14, 2006 | /s/ Randall D. Sampson                       |   |
|                   | Randall D.  Sampson,                         |
|                   | President, and  Chief Executive Officer      |
|                   |                                         |
| Dated: August 14, 2006 | /s/ David C. Hansen                          |   |
|                   | David C. Hansen,                             |
|                   | Vice President,  and Chief Financial Officer |
|                        |                                              |  |  |

 

1

----
#### Cobbs *v.*Fowler.

Ruled per

Ashe and Spencer,

that as in this case there were five Defendants in trespass, and four had been taken and pleaded to issue, and the process had not continued against the other for several terms, it was a dis*17Continuance of the whole cause. *Davie*for the nuance, cited 11 *Co.*6, where it is said, there, was trespass against four, and judgment by default against one, and a writ of enquiry awarded to prevent a discontinuance. in the present case, a discontinuance was entered accordingly, though much opposed by the Counsel on the other side.
EXHIBIT
32.1
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 USC, SECTION 1350,
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Renhuang Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended January 31, 2009, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Li Shaoming, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 (1)    The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2)    Information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 Dated:
      January 7, 2010
                /s/ Li ShaomingBy:
      Li ShaomingIts:
      Chief Executive Officer
NO. 12-13-00286-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

TA'VARIS JONES, 

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 159TH 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

ANGELINA COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

This appeal is being dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Following a guilty plea, 

Appellant was convicted of assault family violence, and his sentence was imposed in open court 

on July 24, 2013.

An appeal is perfected when notice of appeal is filed within thirty days after the day 

sentence is imposed or suspended in open court when, as in this case, no motion for new trial is 

timely filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1). Therefore, Appellant’s notice of appeal was due to 

have been filed on or before August 23, 2013. Appellant did not file his notice of appeal until 

August 29, 2013. Consequently, the notice of appeal was untimely. 

On September 10, 2013, this court notified Appellant that his notice of appeal was 

untimely filed and that there was no timely motion for an extension of time to file the notice of 

appeal as permitted by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.3. In response, on September 16, 

2013, Appellant filed a motion to extend the time for filing his notice of appeal. 

An appellate court may extend the time for filing a notice of appeal if, within fifteen days 

after the deadline for filing the notice of appeal, the appellant files a notice of appeal in the trial 

court and a motion complying with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 10.5(b) in the appellate 

court. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3. In this case, Appellant’s motion for extension of time was due to 
2

have been filed on or before September 9, 2013. See id. However, Appellant did not file his 

motion until September 16, 2013. Therefore, his motion was untimely and did not extend the 

time for filing his notice of appeal. See id.

Because this court has no authority to allow the late filing of a notice of appeal except as 

provided by Rule 26.3, the appeal must be dismissed. See Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 

(Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). 

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 

Opinion delivered September 25, 2013.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

SEPTEMBER 25, 2013

NO. 12-13-00286-CR

TA'VARIS JONES,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 159th District Court 

of Angelina County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 2012-0491)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same 

being considered, it is the opinion of this court that this court is without jurisdiction of the 

appeal, and that the appeal should be dismissed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this court that 

this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction; and that this decision 

be certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J. and Hoyle, J.
**RB** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 2 2 - 0699 STATE OF MONTANA,

P la intiff and Appellee , v. KAITLYN REBECCA HOLMES ,

Defendant and Appellant .

**ORDER** Upon consideration of

A ppellee ’s motion for a 45 - day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time to and including October 20 , 2023 , within which to prepare, file, and serve its response brief

.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 29 2023

08/29/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0699