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



EXHIBIT 32 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. § 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002* In connection with the Quarterly Report of Cronos Global Income Fund XVI,
L.P. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the
undersigned, Dennis J. Tietz, the President and Chief Executive Officer of
Cronos Capital Corp., the General Partner of the Registrant, and John Kallas,
Chief Financial Officer of Cronos Capital Corp., certify, based on their
knowledge, that:  (i)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934; and(ii)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operation of the Registrant.May 14, 2004 By
    
    /s/ Dennis J. TietzDennis J. Tietz, President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of Cronos Capital Corp.,General Partner of the Registrant/s/ John KallasJohn Kallas, Chief Financial Officer of CronosCapital Corp., General Partner of the Registrant
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.  *

    
    This certification, required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, other than as required by Section 906, shall not be deemed to be
filed with the Commission or subject to the rules and regulations
promulgated by the Commission under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, or to the liabilities of Section 18 of said Act.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7035

THEODORE TIMOTHY MILLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus ART BEELER, Warden; B. R. JETT; DR. LOWE; DR. WALASIN; DR. GONZALEZ; B. CAPEHARDT, Dr.; JEAN ZULA, Dr., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-03-774-5-H) Submitted: November 10, 2004 Decided: December 10, 2004 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Theodore Timothy Miller, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Theodore Timothy Miller appeals the district court’s order denying him appointment of counsel and dismissing as frivolous his claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971). We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion or reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Miller v. Beeler, No. CA-03-774-5-H (E.D.N.C. filed April 29, 2004; entered April 30, 2004). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM BALANCE
SHEET, INCOME STATEMENT AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<CIK> 0001002577
<NAME> T.J.T., INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                             662
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,324
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      3,981
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,195
<PP&E>                                           2,185
<DEPRECIATION>                                     852
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  10,006
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,210
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             5
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,594
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    10,006
<SALES>                                          8,093
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,114
<CGS>                                            6,548
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,332
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   3
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    234
<INCOME-TAX>                                       101
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                133
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       133
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03
        

</TABLE>
#### Den *ex dem.*of Edmund McLindon *v.*Gideon B. Winfree.

Whfere a deed vas proved, and before its registration tile boundaries of another tract were inserted in it, it was held that evidence of that fact did not impeach the deed, but that as to the tract, the boundaries of which were inserted after probate, the deed Was unregistered..

Ejectment tried before Strange, Judge, at Anson, on the last circuit.

The plaintiff claimed .title under a judgment, execution and sheriff’s deed; and having made out his case, the defendant offered to prove by the sheriff, that the land in dispute had been sold with Several other tracts — that' by mistake it was not inserted in the deed until after-its probate, and the order for its registration j and that then, the mistake having been discovered, the sheriff, at thcre-quest of the purchaser, inserted the land in question in the deed — when it was registered without another probate. The plaintiff objected to this testimony, but his Honor received it; and the sheriff upon his examination fully supporting the defence, the plaintiff was nonsuited -and appealed.

No counsel appeared for either party.

Hah, Judge.

I think.the testimony .of the sheriff in this case was properly received. It was not the reception of parol evidence to destroy or alter a deed, but to support it, and to preserve it from contamination, by preventing matter *dehors*the deed from creeping into it. The deed, shown forth in evidence by the plaintiff has been acknowledged in court and registered, and includes the land su~ *263ed for, and to all appearance conveys title to it; when in fact there never was any acknowledgement or order of registration, as far as relates to that *land;*and it is to rescue the deed from the burden of that falsehood, that the testimony is received. When that is done, the deed is placed in its original shape, and like other deeds is unassailable by parol evidence. To say the least of it, tho’ probably there was no injury intended to be done to any one, the conduct of the sheriff was very reprehensible in making tho insertion after he had acknowledged the deed in court.

It may be said that the plaintiff has a deed for the land; but that deed has been neither proved or acknowledged in court, nor registered.

Per Curiam — JudgmbNt affirmed.
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1411 

To continue in effect for the 2017 and 2018 fishing seasons certain fishing 

specifications for the summer flounder fishery, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 7, 2017 

Mr. PALLONE (for himself and Mr. LOBIONDO) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To continue in effect for the 2017 and 2018 fishing seasons 

certain fishing specifications for the summer flounder 

fishery, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Transparent Summer 

5 Flounder Quotas Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CONTINUATION OF FISHING SPECIFICATIONS FOR 

7 THE SUMMER FLOUNDER FISHERY. 

8 (a) LIMITATION.—The final rule published by the 

9 National Marine Fisheries Service titled ‘‘Fisheries of the 

10 Northeastern United States; Summer Flounder, Scup, and 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1411 IH

1 Black Sea Bass Fisheries; 2017–2018 Summer Flounder 

2 Specifications and Announcement of 2017 Summer Floun3 der and Black Sea Bass Commercial Accountability Meas4 ures’’ and published December 22, 2016 (81 Fed. Reg. 

5 93842), shall not apply with respect to the summer floun6 der fishery. 

7 (b) CONTINUATION OF PREVIOUS SPECIFICA8 TIONS.—The specifications for summer flounder estab9 lished in the rule titled ‘‘Fisheries of the Northeastern 

10 United States; Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea 

11 Bass Fisheries; 2016–2018 Summer Flounder, Scup, and 

12 Black Sea Bass Specifications’’ and published December 

13 28, 2015 (80 Fed. Reg. 80689), shall apply with respect 

14 to the summer flounder fishery until the date on which— 

15 (1) a new summer flounder stock assessment is 

16 completed after the date of the enactment of this 

17 Act; and 

18 (2) a new rule based on such stock assessment 

19 takes effect. 

20 (c) RELATIONSHIP TO EXISTING LAW.—Subsections 

21 (a) and (b)— 

22 (1) shall apply notwithstanding section 

23 302(h)(6) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Con24 servation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 

25 1852(h)(6)); and 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1411 IH

1 (2) shall not be construed to affect any other 

2 provision of such Act. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 11

                     STERLING VISION, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                    COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
                                   (Unaudited)
                      (In Thousands, Except Per Share Data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                      For the Three Months Ended
                                                               March 31,
                                                           1997       1996
                                                           ----       ----
<S>                                                       <C>       <C>
   PRIMARY EARNINGS

         Net income                                       $   326   $   158
                                                          =======   =======

         Weighted average number of common
            shares outstanding                             12,387    12,277

         Weighted average number of common shares
            to be issued                                      450      --

         Incremental shares based on the treasury
           stock method for stock options and warrants,
           using the average market price                     402       104
                                                          -------   -------

         Weighted average number of common share
           and common share equivalents outstanding        13,239    12,381
                                                          =======   =======

        Primary earnings per common share                 $   .02   $   .01
                                                          =======   =======

       FULLY DILUTED EARNINGS*
         Net income                                       $   326   $   158
                                                          =======   =======

         Weighted average number of common
            shares outstanding                             12,387    12,277

         Weighted average number of common shares
             to be issued                                     450      --

         Incremental shares based on the treasury
           stock method for stock options and warrants,
           using the average market price                     405        71
                                                          -------   -------


         Weighted average number of common share
           and common share equivalents outstanding        13,242    12,348
                                                          =======   =======

      Fully diluted earnings per common share             $   .02   $   .01
                                                          =======   =======
</TABLE>


*  This calculation is submitted in accordance with Security Exchange Act of
   1934 Release No. 9083 although not required by footnote 2 to paragraph 14 of
   APB Opinion No. 15 because it is anti-dilutive or results in dilution of less
   than 3%.

                                       15
Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter

United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 06-2387

JOSEPH V. METALLIC,

Petitioner, Appellant,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

Respondent, Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

Before

 Lipez, Circuit Judge,

Stahl, Senior Circuit Judge,

and Howard, Circuit Judge.

Joseph V. Metallic on brief pro se.

Eileen J. O'Connor, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas J.

Clark and Marion E.M. Erickson, Attorneys, Tax Division, Department

of Justice on brief for appellee.

May 31, 2007
-2-

Per Curiam. Appellant Joseph Metallic appeals from an

adverse United States Tax Court decision. We affirm.

In his tax petition, Metallic claimed he did not have to

pay federal income tax because he is a Micmac Indian and a 1776

treaty with his tribe did not require the payment of taxes. In its

Memorandum Opinion filed on June 13, 2006, the Tax Court correctly

rejected that claim, citing pertinent authorities. It pointed out

that Native Americans, like "other U.S. citizens," are obliged to

pay federal income taxes, and that while treaties might exempt them

from taxation, the 1776 treaty did not do so.

On appeal, Metallic objects to the Tax Court's suggestion

that he is a United States citizen, alleging that he is a member of

a Canadian Micmac tribe. Even if the facts are as he says, no

prejudicial error by the Tax Court has been shown. Metallic

acknowledges that he resides in this country, and so the tax laws

apply to him even if he is not a citizen. See, e.g., 26 C.F.R. §

1.1-1(a)(1) (noting that the tax code imposes a tax on the income

of "every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United

States"). 

We have considered Metallic's remaining claims, but find

them meritless.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
unaudited June 30, 2000 financial statements of Medcare Technologies, Inc. and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                              JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                      1,607,998
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 183,624
<ALLOWANCES>                                   73,500
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            2,167,994
<PP&E>                                        294,457
<DEPRECIATION>                                 44,130
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              2,167,994
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         529,445
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                 1,533,391
<COMMON>                                       10,313
<OTHER-SE>                                     94,845
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                2,167,994
<SALES>                                       387,857
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              387,857
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               1,180,624
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (66,353)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (2,057,449)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (2,057,449)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                              (2,057,449)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.21)



</TABLE>
Order filed January 31 , 2019

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 18

- 00054

- CR

____________ DARRYL WAYNE LINDSEY , JR. , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 506th Judicial District Court

Waller County, Tex as Trial Court Cause No. 14

- 12

- 14947



### ORDER
Appellant’s brief discloses the name of a child victim of sexual assault under the age of 17. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. a rt. 57.02(h) ; Tex. R. App. P. 9.10(b) . Accordingly, the brief is STRICKEN

. App ellant is ordered to file a brief that complies with Tex. Code Crim. Proc.

a rt. 57.02 and Tex. R. App. P. 9.10 by February 11, 2019.

PER CURIAM
UNITED STATES NAVY–MARINE CORPS

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

_________________________

No. 201700132

_________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Appellee

v.

ADAM L. GONZALES

Private First Class (E-2), U.S. Marine Corps

Appellant

_________________________

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: Lieutenant Colonel Matthew J. Kent, USMC.

Convening Authority: Commanding General, 1st Marine Division 

(Rein); Camp Pendleton, CA.

Staff Judge Advocate’s Recommendation: Major Matthew J. Stewart, 

USMC.

For Appellant: Captain Scott F. Hallauer, JAGC, USN.

For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________

Decided 11 July 2017

_________________________

Before MARKS, RUGH, and PETTIT, Appellate Military Judges

_________________________

After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of 

error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved by the convening 

authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c). 

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL

Clerk of Court
exv4w1






     



Exhibit 4.1














 









 









	COMMON SITOCK COMMON STOCK INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA COMMON STOCK
SHARES OF COMMON STOCK, PAR VALUE $0.01 PER SHARE OF PARK STERLING CORPORATION The shares evidenced by tills CeiltHCaW am Imnsieiable on Itie books ol the Corpomtioii by the tiolcler herool in person or l)y a duly aiUhonzed. attorney or legal representative, upon siirrencler of this Ceililiualo piopcily encbfsed. The shwos evidenced by this Ceiiificate are qmsoawbtQ under Section 5342 of Hie North Carolina General Statutes. This CerlJic&le &r,cl lite gharf s .epi^ Suiiiiu lieretiy are subject
 to all the provisions ol the Adicles of IncoippiatiOn and Bylaws of’lhe Cofpoi;4ioh and nil ennnd-imnlr thereto (copies ol which are’(^n lile v/ilhlheTiknsI^.’/-gent).,This Cerliticate is not valid unless countetsigned by the Tmnmfer Agon! and registeteU by Ih; %oHtrEr.
The’Coir.nion Slijck evidenced hy this Ceitificato is non-withdrav/able capital, is not ol insurat)le typo, and Is not insured by tlie Or-posit InsurArce F(/rd or rhy other Fund of ttie Federal Deposit InsLiranco Coiporation,
IN WITNESS WHfiHIiOF, the Coiporation has caused this Certilicale to be executed by the facsimile signatures of its duly autlioiizcd ofliceis and has caused its facsimile seal to be affixed hereto.
Dated:
#### STATE and F. E. FOWLER v. ELIAS ROSE.

Wllei’S a child is born ih wedlock the law presumes it to be legitimate, and the presumption can only be removed by proof of impossibility of ac« cess, or impotency of the hdsband.

PROCEEDING in *Bastardy*tried before Watts, J., at Spring Term, 1876, of Johnson Superior Court.

The defendant was recognised to appear at Spring Term, 1876, When he moved the Court to quash the proceeding, and in support of the motion introduced evidence showing that at the time of the birth of the child the prosecutrix was a married woman.

The Court allowed the motion and the State appealed.

*Attorney General Hargrove,*for the State.

*A. M.*Lems, for the defendant.

*240Reade, J.

There is no error in the order appealed from. Where a child is born in wedlock, the law presumes it to be legitimate; and this presumption can only be removed by-proof of impossibility of access or impotency of the husband. This will be certified, that the proceedings may be quashed.

Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, July 02, 2019. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, July 02, 2019 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A19A0978. MARCUS BROWN v. THE STATE.
Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion is hereby GRANTED.
Exhibit 23.2

 

Consent of Ernst & Young LLP,Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements(Forms S-8 Nos. 333-104307 and 333-64932) pertaining to the Amended and Restated1995 Stock Option Plan, the 1997 Incentive Stock Option Plan, the 1999 DirectorOption Plan, the VEO Systems, Inc. Option Plan, the CommerceBid.com, Inc. 1999Equity Incentive Plan, the 1999 Mergent Systems, Inc. Stock Option Plan, the1999 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, the 1999 Nonstatutory Stock Option Plan, theAppnet Systems, Inc. 1998 Stock Option and Incentive Plan, the Appnet Systems,Inc. 1999 Stock Incentive Plan, the Internet Outfitters, Inc. 1996 IncentiveStock Option Plan, the Appnet e-Business Technology and Integration, Inc.Incentive Stock Option Plan and the Exterprise, Inc. 1999 Stock Plan and theRegistration Statements (Forms S-3 Nos. 333-108144 and 333-114183) of CommerceOne, Inc. and in the related Prospectus of our report dated January 27, 2003,with respect to the 2002 and 2001 consolidated financial statements and scheduleof Commerce One, Inc included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 3) for the yearended December 31, 2003.

/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP            

Walnut Creek, California