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

| 1. | I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Abaxis, Inc.; |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 3. | Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 4. | The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and we have: |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 5. | The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  July 2, 2013 |   | /s/ Alberto R. Santa Ines                             |  |
|--------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------|--|
|                     |   | Alberto R. Santa Ines                                 |  |
|                     |   | Chief Financial Officer and Vice President of Finance |  |

----
June 2019 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION

Results 

(Plaintiff) 

Case number 

vs District Judge 

(Defendant) 

Mediator 

MEDIATOR=S SETTLEMENT WEEK REPORT

Following the conference, please return this report to the Jessica Rector in Room 235 (or by email at 

Jessica_Rector@ohsd.uscourts.gov). 

I. RESULTS OF CONFERENCE

1. The case is settled. Dismissal entry to be filed by . 

(Date) 

2. Negotiations have not reached impasse, but the case requires: 

a. additional negotiations between counsel. 

Counsel will file status report by . 

(Date) 

b. additional conference with 

 Mediator, to be held on . 

(Date) 

 Magistrate Judge 

 District Judge 

3. Negotiations are at impasse. The case 

 requires additional discovery 

 requires resolution of a dispositive motion 

 is ready for trial 

 (other) 

 

II. COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDER

1. Were all persons with settlement authority present? 

 Yes No (Please explain) 

2. Were all trial counsel present? 

 Yes No (Please explain) 

3. Were offers/demand exchanged prior to the conference? 

 Yes No (Please explain) 

III. COMMENTS: (Use back for comments) Do not disclose substance of discussions or other confidential 

information. 

Case: 2:18-cv-00745-ALM-KAJ Doc #: 16-1 Filed: 05/17/19 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 58
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                             972
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,140
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (130)
<INVENTORY>                                      5,247
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,939
<PP&E>                                           3,070
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,064)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  13,088
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,828
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        19,922
<OTHER-SE>                                    (13,696)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    13,088
<SALES>                                          2,630
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,630
<CGS>                                            1,883
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,883
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,039
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 120
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (412)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (412)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (412)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. §1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of HF Financial Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe quarterly period ended September 30, 2005, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, CurtisL. Hage, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)                                  The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 
|   | /s/ Curtis  L. Hage                 |                                |
|--------|-------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|
|   | Curtis L. Hage, Chairman, President |
|   | and Chief Executive Officer         |
|   |                                |
|   | Date:                               |   November 10,  2005 |   |
|        |                                     |                                     |  |  |

 

----

*                                         A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906 has been provided to HF Financial Corp. and willbe retained by HF Financial Corp. and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

1

----
#### Charles P. RUMPH, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 22063.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

April 2, 1965.

R. Edgar Campbell, Albany, Ga., for appellant.

Sampson M. Culpepper, Asst. U. S. Atty., Macon, Ga., for appellee.

Before WOODBURY* WISDOM, and BELL, Circuit Judges.

*

 Of the First Circuit, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted upon trial by the court without a jury of forging and issuing a United States Treasurer’s check in violation of Title 18 U.S.C.A. § 495. Imposition of sentence was suspended, and appellant was placed on probation for a period of two years without supervision on the condition that he repay the amount of the check, $48.40, to the persons to whom the check was issued. He was represented on the trial by counsel of his own selection and is represented here by counsel appointed by this court. An in forma pauperis appeal was allowed by the District Court.

Appellant’s counsel has advised the court as follows:

> “After a careful review of the entire record in the above captioned case, I can find nothing in the nature of reversible error, I must therefore request that I be granted leave to withdraw from the case.”

*581We are satisfied that counsel has been diligent in his approach to the appeal and that his advice to the court is in the- highest tradition of the legal profession. Since receipt of counsel’s letter, the record in the case has been carefully reviewed by the court and we have reached the conclusion that the appeal is frivolous and should be dismissed. See Porter v. United States, 5 Cir., 1959, 272 F.2d 695.

The application of counsel to withdraw from the case is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

BRANDON WARD,
Civil Action 2:18-cv-734

Petitioner, Chief Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.
Magistrate Judge Michael M. Merz

v.

DAVID GRAY, WARDEN
BELMONT CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

Respondent.
ORDER

On June 5, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)
recommending that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus be dismissed. (ECF No. 9.)
Although the parties were advised of the right to file objections to the R&R, and of the
consequences of failing to do so, no objections have been filed. Therefore, the R&R (ECF No.
9) is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. This action is hereby DISMISSED.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) and Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254
Cases in the United States District Courts, the Court must determine whether to issue a certificate
of appealability. Because Petitioner has waived the right to file an appeal by failing to file
objections to the R&R, see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147 (1985); United States v. Walters,

638 F. 2d 947, 950 (6th Cir. 1981), the Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
7-2 2019 -TM
DATE ED) yrAy ARGUS, JR.
CHIEF UNETED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6936

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MUHAMMED MAHDEE ABDULLAH,

Defendant - Appellant.

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

Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:04-cr-00371-FL-1)

Submitted: January 20, 2023 Decided: May 16, 2023

Before WYNN, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Muhammed Mahdee Abdullah, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6936 Doc: 10 Filed: 05/16/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Muhammed Mahdee Abdullah appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 

U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. We review the court’s order for 

abuse of discretion. United States v. Malone, 57 F.4th 167, 172 (4th Cir. Jan. 5, 2023). “A 

district court has abused its discretion when it acts arbitrarily or irrationally, fails to 

consider judicially recognized factors constraining its exercise of discretion, relies on 

erroneous factual or legal premises, or commits an error of law.” Id. (cleaned up). We 

have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in

determining that Abdullah was still a career offender. See United States v. Groves, __ F.4th 

__, __, 2023 WL 2941415, at *7 (4th Cir. 2023) (“[A]lthough the Guidelines exclude 

attempt offenses, § 841(a)(1) does not criminalize attempt[s] such that an § 841(a)(1) 

distribution offense would be categorically disqualified from being treated as a “controlled 

substance offense.”).

∗

 We therefore affirm the district court’s order. 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

∗ This Court limits review to issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. 

R. 34(b); see also Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014).

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6936 Doc: 10 Filed: 05/16/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 02-4411

STEPHEN MICHAEL PAGE,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville.

Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge.

(CR-00-15)

Submitted: April 16, 2003

Decided: May 1, 2003

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

William L. Davis, III, Lumberton, North Carolina, for Appellant. D.

Scott Broyles, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,

Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 
OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Stephen Michael Page pleaded guilty to membership in a conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§§ 841, 846 (2000). Page was sentenced to 292 months incarceration

and 5 years of supervised release. Page timely appealed his conviction, and his attorney has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967). 

On appeal, Page asserts that the magistrate judge erred in conducting his Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 plea colloquy, and consequently, that the

district court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

We review this claim for abuse of discretion. United States v. Ubakanma, 215 F.3d 421, 424 (4th Cir. 2000). Page’s claims are meritless. Page cannot establish his plea colloquy was flawed, or that the

district court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 11; United States v. Lambey, 974 F.2d 1389, 1394 (4th

Cir. 1992); United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116-17 (4th Cir.

1991). United States v. Moore, 931 F.2d 245, 248 (4th Cir. 1991). 

Accordingly, we affirm Page’s conviction and sentence. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case

and find no other meritorious issues for appeal. This court requires

that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the

Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client

requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave

to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a

copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented

in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED

2 UNITED STATES v. PAGE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATI
JAMES JONES, et al., : Case No. 1:18-cv-403
Plaintiffs, : Judge Matthew W. McFarland
v.

VILLAGE OF GOLF MANOR, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS (DOC. 57), ADOPTING REPORTING AND
RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 56), GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (DOC. 51) AND TERMINATING CASE

This action is before the Court on Plaintiffs James and Darlene Jones’s Objections
(Doc. 57) to Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman's Report and Recommendations
(Doc. 56). Magistrate Judge Bowman recommended that the Court grant the Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 51) filed by Defendants Matt Brettcher, Sharon
Chaney, Stephan Densmore, Brenda DuBose, Ron Hirth, Lou Marx, Greg Schwartzberg,
and Village of Golf Manor (“Defendants”), and dismiss this case. Plaintiffs failed to file
their Objections (Doc. 57) to the Report and Recommendations within the fourteen-day
period permitted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). In the interest of justice, however, the
Court has considered the Objections and Defendants’ Response (Doc. 59) to them.

As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the

Court made a de novo review of the record in this case. Upon said review, the Court


finds that Plaintiffs’ Objections (Doc. 57) are not well-taken and accordingly are
OVERRULED. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendations (Doc. 56) in its
entirety and GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 51).

This case is hereby TERMINATED on the Court's docket.

Mah we! 00

MATTHEW W. McFARLAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Exhibit 32

 

CERTIFICATION 

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

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

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of United Retail Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 29, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Raphael Benaroya, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and George R. Remeta, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, that based on our 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 Company.

 

| /s/ RAPHAEL BENAROYA

Raphael Benaroya

Chief Executive Officer

September 7, 2006         |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                                                       |   |
| /s/ GEORGE R. REMETA

George R. Remeta

Chief Financial Officer

September 7, 2006

  |   |
[WELLS FARGO LETTERHEAD]


 


EXTENSION NOTICE 


 


November 1, 2015 


 


Wells Fargo Bank, National Association


Wholesale Loan Services


7711 Plantation Road R4057-01 R


Roanoke, Virginia 24019


 


ENVIROSTAR, INC. 


290 Northeast 68th Street 


Miami, Florida 33138 


 


RE:      Notice of Extension of Revolving Line
of Credit


 


Dear BORROWER:


 


WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
is pleased to inform you that your line of credit/loan in the amount of $2,250,000.00 (the "Credit"), has been
approved for extension. The new final payment date will be November 1, 2016. Subject to applicable terms of the existing
loan documentation, advances under the line of credit will be available until November 1, 2016.


 


Your credit remains subject to all terms and
conditions of existing loan documentation, as modified by this Extension Notice. Payments as set forth in the loan documents will
continue to be due during the extension period. Except as expressly provided in this Notice, all terms and conditions of the Credit
will remain unchanged.


 


If you do not desire the extension of the Credit
on these terms, you must (i) deliver to Wells Fargo Bank, National Association at MAC Z6204-018, 200 South Biscayne Boulevard,
Floor 01, Miami, Florida 33131 a written rejection of the extension within 10 days from the date of this letter, (ii) not draw
additional Funds under the Credit, and (iii) promptly make arrangements with your loan officer to pay the matured balance of the
Credit.


 


If you have any questions, please do not hesitate
to call Matthew Rapoport at 305-789-5005. We appreciate your business and look forward to continuing to serve as
your business bank.
117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 70 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Whereas the Federal Bureau of Investigation is investigating 

the bomb threats made in January and February 2022 

against HBCUs as racially or ethnically motivated violent 

extremism and hate crimes; 

Whereas a high-quality education is central to economic prosperity and social well-being in the United States; 
2 

•HCON 70 EH 

Whereas HBCUs provide educational and economic opportunities for postsecondary students; 

Whereas these institutions educate and produce a significant 

share of the Nation’s Black leaders and innovators; 

Whereas as early as the 19th century, HBCUs were established in response to discriminatory practices that excluded Black Americans from pursuing an education in 

the United States; 

Whereas, on January 5, 2022, at least 8 HBCUs received 

bomb threats, including Howard University, Xavier University, University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff, Prairie 

View A&M University, North Carolina Central University, Florida Memorial University, Norfolk State University, and Spelman College; 

Whereas, on January 31, 2022, at least 6 HBCUs received 

bomb threats, including Southern University and A&M, 

Howard University, Bethune-Cookman University, Albany State University, Bowie State University, and Delaware State University; 

Whereas, on February 1, 2022, the first day of Black History 

Month, at least 18 HBCUs received bomb threats, including Shorter College, Philander Smith College, Arkansas Baptist College, the University of the District of Columbia, Howard University, Edward Waters University, 

Spelman College, Fort Valley State University, Kentucky 

State University, Xavier University, Coppin State University, Morgan State University, Jackson State University, 

Alcorn State University, Mississippi Valley State University, Rust College, Tougaloo College, and Harris-Stowe 

State University; 
3 

•HCON 70 EH 

Whereas HBCUs provide an environment of belonging, safety, and security for Black students, faculty, and administrators; and 

Whereas these threats against HBCUs disrupt campus environments, obstruct educational opportunities, increase 

anxiety, and instill fear: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That Congress— 

3 (1) condemns violence and the threat of violence 

4 against HBCUs, including bomb threats made 

5 against several HBCUs on January 5, 2022, Janu6 ary 31, 2022, and February 1, 2022; and 

7 (2) reaffirms the commitment of the United 

8 States Federal Government to combat violence 

9 against HBCU students, faculty, and staff. 

Passed the House of Representatives March 8, 

2022. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 70 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Condemning threats of violence against historically 

dents. reaffirming support for HBCUs and their stuBlack colleges and universities (‘‘HBCUs’’) and