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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted
from the Unaudited Statements of Operations and Accumulated
Deficit for the Three Months Ended March 31, 1997 and the
Unaudited Balance Sheet at March 31, 1997 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                           MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                     184,396
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                              423,794
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                113,060
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           725,598
<PP&E>                                     312,999
<DEPRECIATION>                             302,896
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             735,701
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       40,861
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                 10,000
<COMMON>                                   122,824
<OTHER-SE>                                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               735,701
<SALES>                                    376,588
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           377,789
<CGS>                                      228,414
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              309,076
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,340
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           9,057
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             67,373
<INCOME-TAX>                                67,373
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         67,373
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                67,373
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 0.00
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF 
  CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF 
  GOLD BANC CORPORATION, INC.

I, Rick J. Tremblay,
  Chief Financial Officer of Gold Banc Corporation, Inc., hereby certify, in accordance
  with 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
  Act of 2002, that:

| | (a) | The Annual Report on Form 10-K
      for the year ended December 31, 2004, which accompanies this certification,
      fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and                                  
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |     |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      
| | (b) | The information contained in the
      Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004, which accompanies
      this certification, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operations of Gold Banc Corporation, Inc.

Dated: March 24, 2005.

By:/s/ RICKJ. TREMBLAY
          Rick J. Tremblay 
          Chief Financial Officer




---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-4613

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. JAMMIE RAY PITTMAN, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (1:06-cr-00043-5) Submitted: March 4, 2008 Decided: July 18, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert W. Adams, Hickory, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy E. Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Jammie Ray Pittman pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to conspiracy to manufacture and possess methamphetamine with the intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846 (2000). On appeal, Pittman argues the district court, having stricken a two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice recommended by the probation officer, erred by not further reducing his sentencing range upon granting the Government’s motion for downward departure. His brief claims without reference to the record that “[h]e did not give up his right to appeal from a Judgment which was entered based on a miscalculation in the Presentence Report.” Because we find the appellate waiver that is a provision of Pittman’s plea agreement was knowing and voluntary and the issue raised by Pittman is within the scope of the waiver, we dismiss the appeal. Pittman’s plea agreement contains an appellate waiver that expressly provides he “waives all such rights to contest the conviction and/or the sentence except for: (1) claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, and (2) prosecutorial misconduct.” His appeal does not raise either of these issues. When the government seeks to enforce a waiver of appellate rights and the appellant does not claim the government breached the plea agreement, this court will enforce the waiver if the record establishes the defendant knowingly and voluntarily* Pittman does not assert on appeal that his appellate waiver was invalid. - 3 - agreed to waive the right to appeal, and the issue being appealed is within the scope of the waiver. SeeUnited States v. Blick , 408 F.3d 162, 168-69 (4th Cir. 2005). The record reveals that Pittman agreed to this waiver knowingly and voluntarily. * See United States v. Wessells , 936 F.2d 165, 167-68 (4th Cir. 1991) (explaining that generally, if a district court fully questions a defendant regarding his waiver of appellate rights during the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 colloquy, the waiver is valid). Accordingly, we dismiss Pittman’s appeal. 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. DISMISSED
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 15

- 00041

- CV

SANDERS OIL & GAS, L TD. APPELLANT

V.

NEW TECH ENGINEERING , LP APPELLEE

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

FROM THE 141ST DISTR ICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 141

- 263013

- 12

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



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 

### AND JUDGMENT

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

On February 06, 2015

, and February 20, 2015, we notified appellant in

accordance with rule of appellate procedure 42.3(c) that we would dismiss this

appeal unless the $1 9 5 filing fee was paid. See T ex. R. App. P. 42.3(c).

Appellant has not paid the $1 9 5 filing fee. See Tex. R. App. P. 5, 12.1(b).

1 See Tex. R. App . P. 47.4.2

Because appellant failed to comply with a requirement of the rules of

appellate procedure and the Texas Supreme Court ’s order of August 16 , 20 13

, 2

we dism iss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c), 43.2(f).

Appellant shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MEIER, GABRIEL, and SUDDERTH, JJ.

DELIVERED: March 26, 2015

2 See Supreme Court of Tex., Fees Charged in the Supreme Court, in Civil Cases in the Courts of Appeals

, and Before the Judicial Panel on Multi

- district Litigation , Misc. Docket No. 13

- 9127 (Aug. 16 , 20 13 ) (listing fees in courts of appeals).
# C_2005057EN.01002902.xml

| 5.3.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 57/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.3.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 57/29

---

Action brought on 14 December 2004 by Chr. Muller Touw B.V. and A&C Braid and Rope Co. Pvt. Ltd against the Council of the European Union

(Case T-480/04)

(2005/C 57/50)

Language of the case: Dutch

An action against the Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 14 December 2004 by Chr. Muller Touw B.V, having its registered office in Elst (Netherlands), and A&C Braid and Rope Co. Pvt. Ltd, having its registered office in Rania (India), represented by John Wolfs, advocaat.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

| 1. | annul Regulation No 1736/2004 in so far as it concerns deliveries from A&C in India; |
| --- | --- |

1.

annul Regulation No 1736/2004 in so far as it concerns deliveries from A&C in India;

| 2. | order the Council to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

Chr. Muller Touw, which has its registered office in the Netherlands, supplies raw materials to A&C Braid and Rope in India, which processes those raw materials into rope for export to the EC. The applicants seek the annulment of Regulation No 1736/2004 establishing a definitive anti-dumping duty (1) to the extent to which it applies to them.

1

In support of their application the applicants submit that there is here no question of material injury, as required by Articles 1 and 3 of Regulation No 384/96. (2) The applicants submit that they manufacture rope for private individual use and that is not suitable for industrial use or for use at sea, as stated in the contested regulation, and that their market share is negligible.

2

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1736/2004 of 4 October 2004 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of synthetic fibre ropes originating in India (OJ 2004 L 311, p. 1).

1

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1).

2

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6109

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

PABLO RIVERA-MARTINEZ,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. 

(6:13-cr-00014-TMC-1; 6:13-CV-03340-TMC)

Submitted: May 20, 2014 Decided: June 10, 2014

Before KING, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Pablo Rivera-Martinez, Appellant Pro Se. Maxwell B. Cauthen, 

III, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Pablo Rivera-Martinez seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Rivera-Martinez has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 
3

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
Order filed July 19, 2018

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________
NO. 14

- 18

- 00212

- CV

___________
THE LETCO GROUP , Appellant

V.

KOSSMAN CONTRACTING CO. DBA KOSSMAN CONTRACTING AND

ROBERT KOSSMAN , Appellee s

On Appeal from Co unty Civil C ourt at Law No. 3

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 541012103

O R D E R

No reporter’s recor d has been filed in this case. The official court reporter for

Co unty Civil C our t at Law No

. 3 inform ed this court that appellant has not made

arrangements for payment for the reporter’s record. On June 25, 2018

, we notified

appellant that we would consider and decide those issues that do not require a

reporte r’s record un less appellant, by July 10, 2018 , provided this court with proof

of payment for the record. See T ex. R. App

. P. 37.3(c). No response has been filed

.Accordingly, we order appellant to file a brief in this appeal by August 20,

2018 . If appellant fails to comply with this order, the court may dismiss the appeal

for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

PER CURIAM
<PAGE>   1


                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.3

                        CONSENT OF MILLER AND LENTS, LTD.

         We hereby consent to the references to us under captions "Part I, Item
1 and 2. Business and Properties - Natural Gas and Oil Reserves" in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K of The Houston Exploration Company for the year ended
December 31, 1999 and into the Company's previously filed Registration
Statements on: (i) Form S-3, file number 333-78843 dated May 25, 1999; (ii) Form
S-8, file number 333-36977 dated October 1, 1997; and (iii) Form S-8, file
number 333-47370 dated October 5, 2000.



MILLER AND LENTS, LTD.
Houston, Texas
February 21, 2000
. • 7 .......

2 2 JAN 1959

TO: Ocamander

Air Research and

MN: RDZB

Andrews Air Force Base

Washington 25, D. C.

WDZW

SUBsTaCT: GOR No. eo

DOWNGRADED 

INTERVALS; ;4)1 AT 12 "

• DECLAS4I;ED. DOD 

D!.7

Development Command -

Reference is made to letter, subject as above, dated

23 October 1958, and two messages of clarification free your headquarters, RD= and RD= 10-118-1. In accordance with your

instructions, OCR 80 dated 15 March 1955, revised 26 September 1958,

with four addendum, No's 1 through it, dated 26 September 1958, has _Lea reviewed and ccapared with the 15 September 1958 Weapon System

Development Plan. Due to reprograming action the comparison

is no longer valid.

The reprogramming action vas the result of Memorandum Report

for Director, Deputy Director, and%,ief Scientist, ARrA,_.sullject:

Reorientation of 11TL Program, Office of the Secretary of Defense, 1 December 1958. As a resalb_ofj.he ARPA memorandum the program

structure of WS 117L as alliTribed in the 15 September 1958 Developient

Plan has undergone radical change. The new structure will call for

four or more separately identified and documented programs. At the present time these' new development plans arb being prepared and they .. will be available to your headquarters in early February. The requiremanta of GDR 80 will be included in appropriate , developeent plans with the following exceptions:

a. The Basic OM 80

(1) Paragraph VII,R, Self Destruction' 

No provisions for satellite on orbit self destruction

are contemplated as vehicle could not survive re-entry. If this requirement of the OOR intends that the satellite contain a ground command

actuated destruct system, it is requested that we be so Instructed.

Huila

tam 59-36.

Cy / of 6

O

• -
NMI

(2) Paragraph VII,Llse.

This parcgmh of the COR states a requirement to

return the intercepted information fray the aleCtronic reconnaissance

subsystem in a secure Tamer to an appropriate location. It has been

our interpretation that the digitally coded data transmitted from the

satellite to acme readout atations on the North Asiericen Continent

and within territorial bitters of Eavaii is considered as secure. If

this interpretation is incorrect and the requirement implies a cryptographic capability for satellite space to ground transmissions, then

the development plea viii be amended to lucatvorate this added feature

on your instructions. The vorkrLU be undertaken within the limitations imposed by program funding.

FOR THE COMMODER:

SIGNED

1. L HAMILTON

Coionol, Ur: V •

Exectelve Officer

.11.01161M.

p

C)

•

•

••

't

nn

imizw 59-36

ey 3 at 6
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4581

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SHERWIN ANTWAIN CARTER, a/k/a Peetey Weeze,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Florence. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (4:15-cr-00095-BHH-3)

Submitted: June 30, 2017 Decided: July 18, 2017

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bradley M. Kirkland, BRADLEY M. KIRKLAND, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellant. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, 

Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Sherwin Antwain Carter pleaded guilty, pursuant to a Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) 

plea agreement, to possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 

U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C) (2012). The parties agreed to a 96-month term of 

imprisonment, and the district court accepted the plea and sentenced Carter accordingly. 

Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), 

questioning whether Carter was properly sentenced. Although notified of his right to do 

so, Carter did not file a pro se supplemental brief, and the Government elected not to 

respond to the Anders brief. We affirm in part and dismiss in part

Generally, we review a defendant’s sentence “under a deferential abuse-ofdiscretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). “However, not all 

sentences are subject to appellate review.” United States v. Williams, 811 F.3d 621, 622-

23 (4th Cir. 2016). In this case, we lack jurisdiction to review Carter’s sentence because 

it was imposed in accordance with the terms of his Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement and 

was neither based on a Sentencing Guidelines range nor imposed in violation of law. See 

id. at 623-25.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and 

have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore dismiss Carter’s challenge to 

his sentence of imprisonment and affirm the remainder of the district court’s judgment. 

This court requires that counsel inform Carter, in writing, of the right to petition the 

Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Carter requests that a petition 

be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may 
3

move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must 

state that a copy thereof was served on Carter.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART;

DISMISSED IN PART
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1


                       RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                Fiscal Year
                                                --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  1993          1994         1995         1996        1996         1997
                                                  ----          ----         ----         ----        ----         ----
                                                            (Predecessor)                                (Successor)
                                                        (dollars in thousands)


<S>                                              <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>    
Income before income taxes ................      $ 8,620      $12,037      $21,189      $ 8,988      $12,969      $24,175
Equity income (loss) ......................           13          529        3,393           82        1,811        2,789
                                                 -------      -------      -------      -------      -------      -------
Income before income taxes and
extraordinary items .......................        8,633       12,566       24,582        9,070       14,780       26,964
Fixed charges:
Cash interest expense .....................          401          401          401          148        9,458       11,895
Dividends on preferred stock ..............          N/A          N/A          N/A          N/A        5,185        4,722
Amortization of bond issue costs ..........           21           21           21            6          411          576
Amortization of deferred debt .............            0            0            0            0          192          530
Interest expense on rental expense ........
                                                     194          144          128           41          124          195
                                                 -------      -------      -------      -------      -------      -------
Total fixed charges .......................          616          566          550          195       15,370       17,918
                                                 =======      =======      =======      =======      =======      =======
Income before income taxes,
extraordinary items and fixed                   
charges ...................................        9,249       13,132       25,132        9,265       30,150       44,882
                                                 =======      =======      =======      =======      =======      =======

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges.........         15.0         23.2         45.7         47.5          2.0          2.5
                                                 =======      =======      =======      =======      =======      =======
</TABLE>
BYE-21305/66 

I N 16111111111 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 -111P-SHRET- BYEMAN 

CONTROL SYSTEM 

46-1- NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

THE NRO STAFF 

19 August 1966 

MEMORANDUM FOR DR. FLAX 

SUBJECT: PSAC Panel Comments on the MOL 

Lt. Colonel Steininger visited us this morning and 

made some interesting comments on the MOL. 

He states that the PSAC Panel on NRO Matters believes 

the DOD is "killing itself in attempts to justify the man." 

He says the man does not need to be justified to the Panel; 

it accepts the man. MOL is an experiment in which man is 

the experimentor. We should keep it that way. 

The PSAC Panel would like to automate all MOL functions so the man can stay loose and be an experimentor. 

Why not, for example, a sensor to do man's weather avoidance task? The Panel (Dr. Land particularly) thinks such 

a sensor could be built, but that DOD is so busy justifying 

man that it won't really want to work on the sensor. 

Steininger says, in summary, that the PSAC Panel 

wants to release man to do his job. 

PAUL E. WORTHMAN 

Colonel USAF 

,DLE VIA 

TOP SECRET 

CONTROL SYSTEM EXCLUDED FROM AUTOMATIC REGRADING 

DOD DIRECTIVE 5100.11) DOES NOT APPLY 

CONTROL RQ kirterilra.1 

toms 

PAGE1 OF 1 PAGES 

gisof-64