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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
consolidated  balance  sheet and the  consolidated  statement of income filed as
part of the  quarterly  report on Form 10-Q and is  qualified in its entirety by
reference to such quarterly report on Form 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                          0000853102
<NAME>                                         Day Runner, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Jun-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jul-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   Mar-31-2000
<CASH>                                          8,598
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  24,378
<ALLOWANCES>                                    8,271
<INVENTORY>                                    40,789
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               81,470
<PP&E>                                         41,422
<DEPRECIATION>                                 26,971
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                181,888
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         126,141
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                           14
<OTHER-SE>                                     55,479
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  181,888
<SALES>                                       139,312
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              139,312
<CGS>                                          75,633
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  75,633
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               72,128
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              8,693
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (17,142)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,674)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (14,468)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (14,468)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (6.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (6.08)



</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
      32.2









In connection with the Quarterly Report of Summus, Inc.  (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-Q for the Quarter ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Donald T. Locke,
      the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of the
      Company.






Date:      
November
              14,
              2005
            /s/
              Donald T.
              LockeDonald T. LockeChief Financial
              Officer
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 8, 2016

No. 04-16-00754-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF BABY V.,

From the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016-PA-00239

Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

This is an accelerated appeal from an order terminating appellant’s parental rights. The 

court reporter has filed a notification of late reporter’s record, requesting an extension of time to 

December 15, 2016. We GRANT the extension and ORDER the court reporter to file the 

reporter’s record on or before December 15, 2016. NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS WILL BE 

GRANTED. 

_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 8th day of December, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
# United States Court of Appeals **For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________ No. 15-3761

___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee v. Rena Shannell Kirk lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa - Davenport

____________ Submitted: April 14, 2016 Filed: April 19, 2016 [Unpublished]

____________ Before GRUENDER, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Rena Kirk challenges the reasonableness of the sentence the district court 1 imposed upon revoking her supervised releas e. Upon careful review, we conclude 1 The Honorable John A. Jarvey, Chief Judge , United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.that the revocation sentence is not unreasonable. See United States v. Miller , 557 F.3d 910, 915-16 (8th Cir. 2009) (discussing appe llate review of revocation sentence); see also United States v. Lazarski , 560 F.3d 731, 733 (8th Cir. 2009) (when court imposed below-Guidelines-range sentence, it was “near ly inconceivable” that court abused its discretion in not varying downward still further). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. We also grant counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw.

______________________________

-2-
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-7135

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

WILLIAM TURNER SMITH,

Defendant - Appellant.

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

Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:07-cr-00011-D-1)

Submitted: February 4, 2022 Decided: February 9, 2022

Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Turner Smith, Appellant Pro Se. David A. Bragdon, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United States Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker,

Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, 

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

William Turner Smith appeals the district court’s order granting his motion for a 

sentence reduction in part. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Smith, 

No. 5:07-cr-00011-D-1 (E.D.N.C. July 28, 2021). 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
**EXHIBIT 32.2****(1)**

**STATEMENTOF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 1350**

I, Ken Owyang, the chieffinancial officer of SupportSoft, Inc. (the “Company”), certify for thepurposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Codethat, to the best of my knowledge,

(i)                  the QuarterlyReport of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended  September 30, 2006 (the “Report”), fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934, and

 

(ii)               the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Date: November 8,2006
|        | /s/ KEN OWYANG                     |
|--------|------------------------------------|
|   | **Ken  Owyang**                    |
|   | **Chief  Financial Officer and**   |
|   | **Senior  Vice President**         |
|   | **of  Finance and Administration** |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by 18 U.S.C. § 1350 has been provided toSupportSoft, Inc. and will be retained by SupportSoft, Inc. and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----

(1)                   The material contained in thisExhibit 32.2 is not deemed “filed” with the SEC and is not to be incorporatedby reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933 orthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, whether made before or after the datehereof and irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in suchfiling, except to the extent that the registrant specifically incorporates itby reference.

----
#### N. S. Monroe v. David Landes.

1. *Verdicts—When Not to be Disturbed by an Appellate Tribunal.*—Where the evidence is conflicting, and that of either side, standing alone, is sufficient to support the verdict, and there are no prejudicial rulings of the court upon the evidence or the instructions, an appellate tribunal will not disturb the finding on the ground that it is not supported by the evidence.

Assumpsit, upon a warranty. Appeal from the County Court of Moultrie County; the Hon. John D. Purvis, Judge, presiding.

Heard in this court at the May term, 1901.

Affirmed..

Opinion filed September 11, 1901.

Whitaker & Thompson and Marion Watson, attorneys for appellant.

Eden, Martin & Edwards, attorneys for appellee.

Mr. Justice Wright

delivered the opinion of the court.

This suit was brought by appellee against appellant upon a contract of warranty of a hay baler, manufactured by appellant, to the effect that it was well made, would bale a 100-pound bale per minute, and other points. The trial resulted in a verdict and judgment against appellant for $200, to reverse which he brings this appeal. There is a little controversy that with proper management the baler would not do the work it was warranted to do, and for this reason it was returned to appellant. The principal contro ver sy, however, was over the question whether the sale and warranty was made by appellant or Hays. Upon this point the evidence was irreconcilably conflicting, and we can justify the verdict that was returned by the jury only *674on the belief that the jury believed appellee and his witnesses, and from all the evidence in the case we can not say they were unwarranted in this. Had the jurv believed appellant and his witnesses the verdict doubtless would have been in his favor, and we know of no reason why it could not have been sustained. Where the evidence is conflicting, and that of either side, standing alone in the record, would support a verdict for the side to which it might be returned, and there are no prejudicial rulings of the court upon the evidence or the instructions, an appellate tribunal will not disturb the verdict on the ground that it is unsupported by the evidence. There were no prejudicial rulings upon the evidence.

It is also insisted there is no evidence that appellee relied upon the warranty, but we think that inference necessarily follows, if the contract was made with Monroe, and the jury have said by their verdict that it was so made.

Much complaint is made of the instructions to the jury, but upon examination of the instructions on both sides we think the jury were fairly instructed and there is no just ground of complaint in that respect. The instructions were also based upon the evidence. The judgment will be affirmed.
## State of N ew York Su p reme Cou rt, A p p ellate Division Third J u dicial Dep artment Decided and Entered: March 19, 2015 519477

________________________________ In the Matter of JONATHAN HURLEY, Appellant, v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER TINA STANFORD, as Chair of the New York State Board of Parole, et al., Respondents.

________________________________ Calendar Date: January 20, 2015 Before: Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Rose and Clark, JJ.

__________ Jonathan Hurley, Woodbourne, appellant pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Victor Paladino of counsel), for respondents.

__________ Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (LaBuda, J.), entered September 2, 2014 in Sullivan County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent Board of Parole denying petitioner's request for parole release. Judgment affirmed. No opinion. Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Rose and Clark, JJ., concur.-2- 519477

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
<PAGE>

Exhbit 10.8



                                    ADDENDUM


         This Addendum amends that certain Employment Agreement dated September
1, 1996 by and between JOSEPH C. MCGOWAN and NCO FINANCIAL SYSTEMS, INC., a
Pennsylvania corporation (the "Agreement"), and this Addendum shall be effective
as of January 1, 1999 (the "Effective Date").

         For good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of
which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:

1.       Paragraph 3 of the Agreement is amended by deleting the text of such
         paragraph in its entirety and replacing it with the following:

         "The term of this Agreement shall be for a period of five (5) years,
         commencing on the Effective Date and terminating on December 31, 2003,
         subject to any early termination provisions set forth in the
         Agreement."

2.       Paragraph A of Exhibit "A" of the Agreement is amended by providing for
         a Base Salary of $250,000 per annum, commencing on the Effective Date.
         The Base Salary shall, at a minimum, be adjusted annually, on the
         anniversary date of the Effective Date pursuant to the CPI then in
         effect for the Philadelphia metropolitan area. The Base Salary shall be
         payable in installments, in arrears, in accordance with the Company's
         regular payroll practices, but not less often than monthly.

3.       In the event any term or condition of this Addendum is inconsistent
         with any term or condition of the Agreement, the terms of this Addendum
         will control. Except as stated above, all the terms and conditions of
         the Agreement, including all restrictions and covenants, shall remain
         in full force and effect and are incorporated herein by reference as
         though set forth at length.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Addendum to become
effective on the Effective Date.

NCO FINANCIAL SYSTEMS, INC.


By:_________________________________              ______________________________
                                                  Joseph C. McGowan
ACCEPTED 14-15-00268-CR FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS 7/24/2015 10:21:42 AM CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2874 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from gross income 

payments under the Indian Health Service Loan Repayment Program 

and certain amounts received under the Indian Health Professions Scholarships Program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 28, 2021 

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO (for herself and Ms. MURKOWSKI) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude 

from gross income payments under the Indian Health 

Service Loan Repayment Program and certain amounts 

received under the Indian Health Professions Scholarships Program. 

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 ‘‘Indian Health Service 

5 Health Professions Tax Fairness Act of 2021’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2874 IS

1 SEC. 2. EXCLUSION FROM GROSS INCOME FOR PAYMENTS 

2 UNDER INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE LOAN RE3 PAYMENT PROGRAM. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (4) of section 108(f) 

5 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by in6 serting ‘‘under section 108 of the Indian Health Care Im7 provement Act,’’ after ‘‘338I of such Act,’’. 

8 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The heading for sec9 tion 108(f)(4) of such Code is amended by striking ‘‘AND

10 CERTAIN’’ and inserting ‘‘, INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE LOAN

11 REPAYMENT PROGRAM, AND CERTAIN’’. 

12 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

13 this section shall apply to payments made after the date 

14 of the enactment of this Act. 

15 SEC. 3. EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN AMOUNTS RECEIVED 

16 UNDER INDIAN HEALTH PROFESSIONS 

17 SCHOLARSHIPS PROGRAM. 

18 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (2) of section 117(c) 

19 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by strik20 ing ‘‘or’’ at the end of subparagraph (B), by striking the 

21 period at the end of subparagraph (C) and inserting ‘‘, 

22 or’’, and by adding at the end the following new subpara23 graph: 

24 ‘‘(D) the Indian Health Professions Schol25 arships Program under section 104 of the In26 dian Health Care Improvement Act.’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2874 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 subsection (a) shall apply to amounts received in taxable 

3 years beginning after December 31, 2021. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

JORGE GOMEZ-GOMEZ, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 20-50163 

D.C. No. 3:17-cr-01287-LAB-1 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 16, 2021**

Before: GRABER, R. NELSON, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges.

Jorge Gomez-Gomez appeals from the district court’s judgment and 

challenges the 99-month sentence and one condition of supervised release imposed 

upon remand following his jury-trial conviction for attempted reentry of a removed

alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAR 23 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 20-50163

§ 1291, and we affirm.

Gomez-Gomez first contends that the district court erred procedurally by 

insufficiently explaining the sentence. We review for plain error, see United States 

v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that 

there is none. The district court considered and rejected Gomez-Gomez’s 

arguments for a shorter sentence, including the circumstances of the ongoing

COVID-19 pandemic. And it explained in detail how Gomez-Gomez’s 

immigration and criminal history justified the above-Guidelines sentence.

Gomez-Gomez also contends that the sentence is substantively 

unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United 

States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence is substantively reasonable in light of 

the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances. 

See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51.

Finally, Gomez-Gomez contends that the district court’s imposition in the 

written judgment of the standard supervised release condition that Gomez-Gomez 

not commit any federal, state, or local crime conflicts with its oral pronouncement 

of the condition. We disagree. Read in context, the court’s oral pronouncement 

was a shorthand description of the condition contained in the written judgment. To 

the extent the district court’s oral pronouncement was ambiguous, the later written 

judgment clarified the ambiguity. See United States v. Garcia, 37 F.3d 1359, 1368
3 20-50163

(9th Cir. 1994), abrogated on other grounds by United States v. Jackson, 167 F.3d 

1280 (9th Cir. 1999).

AFFIRMED.
Soybeans 2022

Planted Acres by County

for Selected States

U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service

Acres

Not Estimated

< 10,000

10,000 - 24,999

25,000 - 49,999

50,000 - 99,999

100,000 - 149,999

150,000 +
**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**


**(18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**








In
      connection with the accompanying Annual Report of Radale Imports, Inc. (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2007 (the
“Report”), I, Ken Swanson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
      certify that to my knowledge:





(1) The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. Sec.78o(d)); and





(2) The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated:
                July 16, 2007*/s/ Ken Swanson*Ken Swanson
              Chief Financial
                Officer






The
      above
      certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Sec.1350) and is not being filed as part of the Form
      10-KSB or as a separate disclosure document.
Exhibit 32.1 – CEO 906 Certification



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 NeoMedia Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”) I, Laura A. Marriott, hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



1.	The Report fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 operation of the Company.



|Date: April 16, 2012 | /s/ Laura A. Marriott          
|-------------------- | -------------------------------
|                     | Laura A. Marriott              
|                     | Chief Executive Officer        
|                     | and Principal Executive Officer