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

<ARTICLE>                           5
       
<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                       JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                                 401,867
<SECURITIES>                                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          390,027
<ALLOWANCES>                                                 0
<INVENTORY>                                          1,739,204
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     3,670,140
<PP&E>                                              10,024,967
<DEPRECIATION>                                         579,065
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      17,773,005
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                6,612,402
<BONDS>                                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                        0
<PREFERRED>                                                  0
<COMMON>                                                 8,470
<OTHER-SE>                                           2,114,465
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        17,773,005
<SALES>                                              1,575,970
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     1,575,970
<CGS>                                                1,139,916
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        4,800,561
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       313,265
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     449,146
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (2,911,326)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 (2,911,326)
<DISCONTINUED>                                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                              0
<CHANGES>                                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (2,911,326)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                             (.34)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                             (.37)
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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 accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for
the period ended  December 31, 2003 (the  "Report") of SMI  Products,  Inc.,  as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  I, James Charuk,  Chief  Financial  Officer of SMI  Products,  Inc.,
hereby  certify  pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as adopted  pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based on 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
Partnership.


Dated: March 28, 2005                        /s/ JAMES CHARUK
                                             ___________________________
                                                 James Charuk
                                                 Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 96-10060 Summary Calendar

__________________ SHAWN ERIC MCGEE, Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus JIM BOWLES; JIM MILLS; JACK CRUMP; BRUCE R. SHERBERT, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:94-CV-355-D
- - - - - - - - - - July 18, 1996 Before JOLLY, JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Shawn Eric McGee, # 582006, appeals the denial of his motion to add Jim Bowles as a defendant and the grant of a protective order from discovery to Bruce Sherbert. The discovery order is not a final appealable judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Periodical Publishers Service Bureau, Inc. v. Keys , 981 F.2d 215, 217 (5th Cir. 1993). McGee's motion to add Bowles as a defendant is a successive motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) and is not reviewable by this court. Latham v. Wells Fargo Bank , 987No. 96-10060 -2- F.2d 1199, 1204 (5th Cir. 1993); Charles L.M. v. Northeast Indep. Sch. Dist. , 884 F.2d 869, 870 (5th Cir. 1989). Accordingly, we DISMISS this case for lack of appellate jurisdiction. McGee's request for appointment of counsel is DENIED.We note that McGee has attempted to appeal two nonappealable interlocutory orders in this action. McGee is warned that his habit of filing non-appealable interlocutory appeals may result in the imposition of sanctions. MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JOSEPH BORIS ZINNER,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 268 WAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 3rd day of July, 2024, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 17 (Tuesday, January 27, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 4301]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01439]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

U.S. Customs and Border Protection


Notice of Revocation of Customs Broker's License

AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland 
Security.

ACTION: Customs broker's license revocation.

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

SUMMARY: This document provides notice of the revocation of a customs 
broker's license.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document provides notice that, pursuant 
to section 641 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (codified at 19 
U.S. Code 1641), and section 111.30(d) of title 19 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations (19 CFR 111.30(d)), the following customs broker's 
license is revoked by operation of law without prejudice for failure to 
file a triennial status report.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Company name                License No.      Port of issuance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian D. Stacy..................              21354             Seattle
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Dated: January 22, 2015.
Brenda Smith,
Assistant Commissioner, Office of International Trade.
[FR Doc. 2015-01439 Filed 1-26-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1948 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1948

To raise the consolidated assets threshold under the small bank holding 
           company policy statement, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 5, 2017

 Mrs. Love (for herself and Mr. Luetkemeyer) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To raise the consolidated assets threshold under the small bank holding 
           company policy statement, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Small Bank Holding Company Relief 
Act''.

SEC. 2. CHANGES REQUIRED TO SMALL BANK HOLDING COMPANY POLICY STATEMENT 
              ON ASSESSMENT OF FINANCIAL AND MANAGERIAL FACTORS.

    (a) In General.--Before the end of the 6-month period beginning on 
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Board of Governors of the 
Federal Reserve System shall revise the Small Bank Holding Company 
Policy Statement on Assessment of Financial and Managerial Factors (12 
C.F.R. part 225--appendix C) to raise the consolidated asset threshold 
under such policy statement from $1,000,000,000 (as adjusted by Public 
Law 113-250) to $10,000,000,000.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Subparagraph (C) of section 171(b)(5) of 
the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (12 
U.S.C. 5371(b)(5)) is amended to read as follows:
                    ``(C) any bank holding company or savings and loan 
                holding company that is subject to the application of 
                the Small Bank Holding Company Policy Statement on 
                Assessment of Financial and Managerial Factors of the 
                Board of Governors (12 C.F.R. part 225--appendix C).''.
                                 <all>
```
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
Annual Report of Pro-Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Theodore Zucconi,
Chief Executive Officer and 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 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 result of operations of the Company.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|               |  |  |  |                            |  |                                                                    
|-------------- |  |  |  | -------------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------
|               |  | 
|March 12, 2010 |  |  |  | /s/    Theodore D. Zucconi
|               |  |  |  | Name:                      |  | Theodore D. Zucconi, Ph.D.                                         
|               |  |  |  | Title:                     |  | Chief Executive Officer and President (principal executive officer)
EXHIBIT 32.1 Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 In connection
with the filing of the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) by
HASCO Medical, Inc. (the Registrant), I, Hal Compton, Jr., Chief Executive
Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify 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, and2.
 The
 information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
 respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of Registrant.  /s/ Hal
 Compton, Jr.Name: Hal
 Compton, Jr.Title: Chief
 Executive Officer, principal executive officer Dated: March 17, 2011 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement 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.
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 18 (Wednesday, January 28, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 4554]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01493]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL00-95-281]


San Diego Gas & Electric Company v. Sellers of Energy and 
Ancillary Services Into Markets Operated by the California Independent 
System Operator Corporation and the California Power Exchange; Notice 
of Compliance Filing

    Take notice that on January 16, 2015, Shell Energy North America 
(US), L.P. submitted a compliance filing pursuant to the Commission's 
Opinion No. 536.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ San Diego Gas & Elec. Co. v. Sellers of Energy and Ancillary 
Services Into Markets Operated by the California Independent System 
Operator and the California Power Exchange., 149 FERC ] 61,116 
(2014) (Opinion No. 536).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. 
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of 
that document on the Applicant and all the parties in this proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for electronic review in the 
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an 
``eSubscription'' link on the Web site that enables subscribers to 
receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed 
docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#adebe8ffeee2c3c1c4c3c8fed8ddddc2dfd9edcbc8dfce83cac2db"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="387e7d6a7b77565451565d6b4d4848574a4c785e5d4a5b165f574e">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on February 6, 2015.

    Dated: January 20, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-01493 Filed 1-27-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1926 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1926

    To amend title 18, United States Code, to ensure that juveniles 
   adjudicated in Federal delinquency proceedings are not subject to 
      solitary confinement while committed to juvenile facilities.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 5, 2017

Mr. Cardenas (for himself, Mr. Grijalva, Ms. Norton, Mr. Pocan, and Mr. 
   Serrano) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend title 18, United States Code, to ensure that juveniles 
   adjudicated in Federal delinquency proceedings are not subject to 
      solitary confinement while committed to juvenile facilities.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting Youth from Solitary 
Confinement Act''.

SEC. 2. JUVENILES ADJUDICATED IN FEDERAL DELINQUENCY PROCEEDINGS NOT 
              SUBJECT TO SOLITARY CONFINEMENT WHILE COMMITTED TO 
              JUVENILE FACILITIES.

    Section 5039 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by adding ``No juvenile in Federal custody held in 
        juvenile facilities may be subject to solitary confinement.'' 
        at the end of the second undesignated paragraph; and
            (2) by inserting after the second undesignated paragraph 
        the following:
    ``Not later than 180 days after the end of each fiscal year, the 
Director of the Board of Prisons shall submit to the President and 
Congress a report with respect to the preceding fiscal year. The report 
shall contain a detailed summary and analysis of the most recent data 
regarding the rate at which juveniles are subject to solitary 
confinement and the trends demonstrated by the data described in the 
next sentence. The data referred to in the preceding sentence are, for 
each juvenile who was subject to solitary confinement during the period 
to which the report pertains, the types of offenses for which the 
juvenile is incarcerated, the race, gender, and age of the juvenile, 
how many hours the juvenile was subject to solitary confinement; and 
the purpose for the solitary confinement.''.
                                 <all>
```
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T R O N M O R T O N , J r ., P e titio n e r- A p p e llan t, v. JA M E S D . H A R T L E Y , W ar den, A venal S t a t e P r i s on, R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N o. 08- 15338 D . C . N o . C V - 0 6 - 0 0 8 7 3 - O WW ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia O l i ve rW . W a nge r , S e ni orD i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng

S ubm i tt e d June 15, 2011 ** B efo re: C A N B Y , O ’ S C A N N L A IN an dF IS H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. C alifo rn ia state p riso n erR o n M o rto n , Jr. ap p ea ls fr o m th e d istrict co u rt’s j udgm e ntde ny i ng hi s 28 U . S . C . § 2254 habe a s pe t i t i on. W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 2 2 5 3 , a n dw e a f f i rm. 

# FI LED JU N 24 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2 08- 15338

M ort on c ont e nds tha tthe B oa r d’ s 2004 de c i s i on t o de nyhi m pa r ol e w a s not s upport e d by“ s om e e vi de nc e ” a nd the r e f or e vi ol a t e d hi s due pr oc e s s r i ght s . T he on l y f eder alri gh tati ss ue i n the parol e c on t exti s proce du ra l , and the on l y proper i nqui ryi s w ha tpr oc e s s the i nm a t e r e c e i ve d, notw he the rthe s t a t e c ourtde c i de d the c a s e c o rr e c tly . Sw artho utv. C oo ke , 1 3 9 S .C t. 8 5 9 , 8 6 3 ( 2 0 1 1 ) ; se e R ob er t s v . H art ley , 2011 W L 1365811 a t*2- 3 ( 9th C i r . A pr . 12, 2011) ( appl y i ng C oo ke ) . Be c au s e M o rt o n r a i s e s n o p r o c e du r a l c h a l l e n g e s , w e a f f i rm. P et i t i on er ’ s m ot i on t o st aypend i ng the fi nal ou t com e of C oo ke i s deni ed as m o o t. AF F I RME D.
#### Mattson, Appellant, vs. Mattson, Respondent.

*March 13*

April *7, 1931.*

*425The cause was submitted for the appellant on the brief of *Larrabee & Larrabee*of Chippewa Falls, and for the respondent on that of *Alexander Wiley*and *Robert L. Wiley,*both of Chippewa Falls.

Rosenberry, C. J.

While the court made no specific finding, it is a fair inference from the fifth finding, quoted in the statement of facts, that the court was of the opinion that the plaintiff should be denied a divorce, although the allegations of the complaint were established, because of the fact that she had permitted the presence of Charles Hewitt in the home of the parties. The position taken in this case raises the question as to what discretion, if any, a court has to deny a divorce where the facts entitling the parties to a divorce are established by the evidence to the requisite degree of legal certainty. We are cited to no case and we find none where it is held that, the right to a divorce being established, the court has a discretion to grant or deny it. The law is the other way. *Lewis v. Lewis,*167 Cal. 732, 141 Pac. 367; *Orton v. Orton,*159 Mich. 236, 123 N. W. 1103; *Tipton v. Tipton,*169 Iowa, 182, 151 N. W. 90. See, also, *Crabtree v. Crabtree,*154 Ark. 401, 242 S. W. 804.

*426In *Lewis v. Lewis, supra,*the supreme court of California said:

> “A case having been made out, there is no arbitrary power to grant or refuse the relief. But, in every action for divorce, the court is called upon to determine whether the evidence before it does establish the truth of the charge made in the complaint.

> “As in other cases, every intendment is in favor of the finding made. Such finding is not to be overthrown on appeal, unless it is very plain to the appellate court that the conclusion reached cannot be supported on any rational view of the testimony.

In *Tipton v. Tipton, supra,*it was held that courts do not exercise the pardoning power, and the fact standing by itself that society will be benefited more by refusing a divorce than granting it, confers no choice on the court where the requirements of the law as to the right to a divorce are met. In the absence of legal justification for denial, the evidence having established the allegations respecting cruel and inhuman treatment of the plaintiff by the defendant, a divorce should have been granted. There is no finding of the court and no evidence of anything that amounts to recrimination. It is quite evident from the finding quoted that the learned trial court in dealing with this matter acted on a mistake of law respecting the right of a court to exercise discretion in cases of this kind. •

*By the Court.*— The judgment and order appealed from are reversed, and cause remanded with directions to the trial court to grant the plaintiff a divorce and to make such allowances for suit money, attorney’s fees, and alimony or division of estate of the parties as are just and proper.