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


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                 Mar-31-1999
<CASH>                                               744
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      7,005
<ALLOWANCES>                                        (604)
<INVENTORY>                                        7,614
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  17,204
<PP&E>                                            20,648
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (11,088)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    32,591
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             25,801
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                              97
<OTHER-SE>                                             0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      32,591
<SALES>                                            8,328
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   8,743
<CGS>                                              4,445
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      3,931
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   822
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (455)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        (136)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 (319)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (319)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (0.03)
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit
32.1








CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of ASIA CORK INC. on Form 10-Q for the
period ending June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof, I, Pengcheng Chen, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:





1.
The Report 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.








February
11, 2010






By:
                /s/ Pengcheng
      ChenPengcheng
      Chen, CEO
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 222 (Monday, November 18, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69085-69086]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27521]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK

[Public Notice: 2013-3005]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request

AGENCY: Export-Import Bank of the United States.

ACTION: Submission for OMB review and comments request.

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

    Form Title: EIB 92-34 Application for Short-Term Letter of Credit 
Export Credit Insurance Policy.

SUMMARY: The Export-Import Banks of the United States (Ex-Im Bank), as 
part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent 
burden, invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to 
comment on the proposed information collection, as required by the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
    This collection of information is necessary, pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 
635(a)(1), to determine eligibility of the applicant for Ex-Im Bank 
assistance.
    The Application for Short Term Letter of Credit Export Credit 
Insurance Policy is used to determine the eligibility of the applicant 
and the transaction for Export-Import Bank assistance under its 
insurance program. Export-Import Bank customers are able to submit this 
form on paper or electronically.
    The application tool can be reviewed at: http://www.exim.gov/pub/pending/eib92-34.pdf.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 18, 2013 to be 
assured of consideration.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically on 
WWW.REGULATIONS.GOV (EIB-2013-0046) or by mail to Office of Information 
and Regulatory Affairs, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20038, 
Attn: OMB 3048-EIB92-34.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Title and Form Number: EIB 92-34 Application for Short-Term Letter 
of Credit Export Credit Insurance Policy.
    OMB Number: 3048-0009.
    Type of Review: Regular.
    Need and Use: This form is used by a financial institution (or 
broker acting on its behalf) to obtain approval for coverage of a 
short-term letter of credit. The information allows the Ex-Im Bank

[[Page 69086]]

staff to make a determination of the eligibility of the applicant and 
transaction for Ex-Im Bank assistance under its programs.
    Affected Public: This form affects entities involved in the export 
of U.S. goods and services.
    Annual Number of Respondents: 11.
    Estimated Time per Respondent: 1 hr.
    Annual Burden Hours: 11.
    Frequency of Reporting of Use: On occasion.
    Government Reviewing Time per Year: 11 hours.
    Average Wages per Hour: $42.50.
    Average Cost per Year: $468 (time*wages).
    Benefits and Overhead: 20%.
    Total Government Cost: $598.

Kalesha Malloy,
Agency Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 2013-27521 Filed 11-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6690-01-P
```
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 97-50250 Summary Calendar

__________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus
REGINALD DWAYNE ELLISON, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-96-CR-125-1
- - - - - - - - - - March 20, 1998 Before JONES, SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Defendant-appellant Reginald Dwayne Ellison appeals his convictions for aiding and abetting the possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute and conspiring to possess cocaine base with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. Ellison has not demonstrated that the district court committed plain error in admitting into evidence information about his previous convictions and arrests, or thatNo. 97-50250 -2- the court engaged in judicial misconduct in connection with the admission of this evidence. See United States v. Calverley , 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994); United States v. Gray , 105 F.3d 956, 964 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 117 S. Ct. 1856 (1997); United States v. Bermea , 30 F.3d 1539, 1569 (5th Cir. 1995); United States v. Moser , 123 F.3d 813, 824 (5th Cir. 1997). Ellison has also failed to show that the court engaged in misconduct with regard to telling his trial attorney in open court to read a requested limiting instruction to the jury. See Bermea , 30 F.3d at 1569; cf. United States v. Candelaria-Gonzalez , 547 F.2d 291, 295-98 & n.8-11 (5th Cir. 1977). The limiting instruction given to the jury with regard to its consideration of evidence of a codefendant’s guilty plea was, in any event, adequate. See United States v. Pierce , 959 F.2d 1297, 1304 (5th Cir. 1992). AFFIRMED.
N 

Shawn Martin Finch, 

Plaintiff, 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

FILED 

SEP -1 2011 

Clerk, U S Dj trl 

Courts fo'r ihe tlsf~c&t BfanCkruptcy 

o olumbla 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Civil Action No. {1 

Kim R. Gibson, 

Defendant. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

This matter is before the Court on review of the plaintifTs complaint and application for 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the in forma pauperis application and 

dismiss the case because the complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading requirements of Rule 

8( a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Pro se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 

656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires 

complaints to contain "(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction 

[and] (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009); Oralsky v. CIA, 355 

F.3d 661, 668-71 (D.C. Cir. 2004). The Rule 8 standard ensures that defendants receive fair 

notice of the claim being asserted so that they can prepare a responsive answer and an adequate 

defense and determine whether the doctrine of res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 

F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). 

3 
The plaintiff is a District of Columbia resident suing an individual in Johnstown, 

Pennsylvania. In the cryptic complaint captioned "Action Involves Discrimination," the plaintiff 

claims violations of the first, eighth and ninth amendments to the Constitution and the "Civil 

Rights Act of 1964 Title III ... [d]ue to dismissal of cases and denying a fair hearing." 

Complaint at 1. The plaintiff has stated no supporting facts. He therefore has failed to provide 

the defendant with any notice of a claim. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 555 U.S. 544, 555 

(2007) (a plaintiff's "[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the 

speculative level .... ") (citations omitted). A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this 

Memorandum Opinion. 

Date: 4U 3,2011 

2
# C_2014427EN.01000201.xml

| 28.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 427/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7367 — CNP / Santander / Santander Irish insurance subsidiaries)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2014/C 427/02)

On 21 November 2014, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7367. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32014M7367. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

ROBERT WORLEY, §

§ No. 132, 2016

Defendant Below- §

Appellant, §

§ Court Below:

v. § Superior Court of the

§ State of Delaware

STATE OF DELAWARE, §

§ Cr. No. 1206000145 A&B

Plaintiff Below- §

Appellee. §

Submitted: October 19, 2016

Decided: November 21, 2016

Before STRINE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and VALIHURA, Justices.

O R D E R

This 21st day of November 2016, the Court, having considered this matter on the 

briefs of the parties, has concluded that the same should be affirmed on the basis of and 

for the reasons assigned by the Superior Court in its decision of March 9, 2016.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment of the 

Superior Court be, and the same hereby is, AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura

Justice
# C_2015302EN.01000101.xml

| 14.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 302/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 302/1

---

Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

(2015/C 302/01)

Last publication

Last publication

OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.

Past publications

Past publications

OJ C 279, 24.8.2015.

OJ C 270, 17.8.2015.

OJ C 262, 10.8.2015.

OJ C 254, 3.8.2015.

OJ C 245, 27.7.2015.

OJ C 236, 20.7.2015.

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 20

- 50083 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,**

Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus

**Angel Alvarez Alvarado,**

Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:18

- CR

- 52

- 1

Before **Wiener, Southwick,** and **Duncan,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *
Angel Alvarez Alvarado pleaded guilty, without the benefit of a plea agreement, to possession of a firearm after felony conviction and was sentenced to 51 months of imprisonment. H e challenges the district court’s application of a sentencing enhancement, under U.S.S.G

. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B),

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  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 cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 12, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-50083 Document: 00515598173 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/12/2020No. 20

- 50083

2 b ased on his possess ion of a firearm in connection with another felony
offense

. Here, the unrebutted presentence report stated that in addition to the firearm, Alvarado possessed 51 grams of cocaine , individually packaged for
distribution , and that he admitted to selling cocaine for monetary compensation. The district court did not clearly err by applying the § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) enhancement based on its plausible determination that
Alvarado was engaged in drug trafficking

. See § 2K2.1, comment. (n.14( B ) (ii) ) ; United States v. Alcantar , 733 F.3d 143, 14 6

- 4 8 (5th Cir. 2013)

. Alvarado’s unsupported speculation that he might have intended to consume
rather than distribute all of the cocaine he possessed is unpersuasive and
insufficient to demonstrate clear error. See Alcantar , 733 F.3d at 146.

**AFFIRMED.** Case: 20-50083 Document: 00515598173 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/12/2020
Exhibit 32.2

SOHU.COM INC.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with
the Quarterly Report of Sohu.com Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Carol Yu, Co-President and
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

(2) The information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company as of June 30, 2008 and results of operations of the Company for the three months ended June 30, 2008.



/s/    Carol YuCarol Yu, Co-President and Chief Financial OfficerDated: August 8, 2008




-43-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM (A) AUDITED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 12/31/97 CONTAINED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM
10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH (B) REPORT ON FORM
10-K.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          87,253
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   19,156
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (692)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               107,658
<PP&E>                                          11,060
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,145
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 119,401
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,026
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           102
<OTHER-SE>                                     108,261
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   119,401
<SALES>                                         76,895
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                76,895
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   39,260
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                31,236
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   594
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 123
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,210
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,625
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,585
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,585
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    $0.54
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $0.53


</TABLE>
#### The State ex rel. Kempster, Respondent, vs. The Common Council of the City of Milwaukee, imp., Appellant.

*May 21*— *June, 20, 1895.*

*Cities: Removal of official by council:*Certiorari: *Appeal: Parties,*

The common council of a city is not a party to the proceedings in which it removes a city official upon charges of misconduct preferred by private citizens, nor to an action of *certiorari*to review such proceedings; and it cannot, therefore, appeal from an order made in such action.

Appeal from an order of the circuit court for Milwaukee ■county; D. EL Johnson, Circuit Judge.

*Dismissed.*

Motion by the relator to dismiss the appeal.

*V. W. Seely,m*support of the motion.

*C. H.*Hamilton, *cont/ra.*

Winslow, J.

The relator was the duly appointed health commissioner of the city of Milwaukee. Upon charges of misconduct in office preferred by private citizens, the common council of said city, after a hearing upon such charges *488bad been bad before a committee of the council, passed a resolution declaring that certain of said charges were sustained by the evidence, and that the said *Kempster*be dismissed from office. Thereupon the relator sued out a writ of *certiorari*from the circuit court for Milwaukee county, directed to the common council of the city and the city clerk, to review said proceedings and reverse the same for alleged errors. The common council appeared in the circuit court, and moved to supersede and vacate the writ, which motion was, upon hearing, denied, and the common council appealed to this court. Motion is now made by the relator to dismiss the .appeal on the ground that the com: mon council has no legal right to appeal. The motion is well founded and must be granted. The common council is not a party to the proceedings for removal, nor to the action of *certiorari,*and cannot therefore appeal. *McCarty v. Ashland Co.*61 Wis. 1.

*By the*Court.— Appeal dismissed.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. CAAP-23-0000491

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I
E.W., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. A.W., Defendant-Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

(CASE NO. 5DV211000135)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL (By: Leonard, Acting Chief Judge, Nakasone and McCullen, JJ.) Upon review of the record, it appears that: (1) The statement of jurisdiction and opening brief were due on or before February 8, 2024;

(2) Self-represented Plaintiff-Appellant E.W. failed to file either document;

(3) On February 13, 2024, the appellate clerk entered a default notice informing E.W. that the time for filing the statement of jurisdiction and opening brief had expired, the matter would be called to the court's attention on February 23, 2024, for appropriate action, which could include dismissal of the appeal, under Hawai i Rules of Appellate Procedure Rules 12.1(e) and 30, and E.W. could request relief from default by motion; and Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-23-0000491 05-MAR-2024 07:55 AM Dkt. 35 ODSDNOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

(4) E.W. has not taken any further action in this appeal. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai i, March 5, 2024. /s/ Katherine G. Leonard Acting Chief Judge /s/ Karen T. Nakasone Associate Judge /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen Associate Judge

2
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D19-4270

_____________________________

JEFF MITCHELL BELL JR,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Jackson County.

Wade Mercer, Judge.

September 14, 2020

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. See Owens v. State, 1D20-540, 45 Fla. L. Weekly 

D2011a (Fla. 1st DCA Aug. 25, 2020) (holding that whether section 

948.06(2) applies to a defendant who committed an offense before 

the statute was amended, when imposing sentence for a violation 

of probation, a trial court is limited under subsection 948.06(2)(f)1 

to modifying or continuing probation or imposing a sentence of up 

to 90 days in county jail only when a defendant “meet[s] all four 

conditions of subsection 948.06(2)(f)1”).

MAKAR, KELSEY, and NORDBY, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Joel Arnold, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Daren L. Shippy, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.