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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                             162
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,408
<ALLOWANCES>                                       353
<INVENTORY>                                     21,568
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                36,485
<PP&E>                                          24,897
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,201
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  72,611
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           25,210
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            6,879
<PREFERRED>                                     13,850
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                    (12,156)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    72,611
<SALES>                                         26,118
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                26,118
<CGS>                                           19,712
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,712
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   207
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,592
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    915
<INCOME-TAX>                                       286
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                629
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       629
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .22<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .25<F2>
<FN>
<F1> PRO FORMA FOR RECAPITALIZATION AS DESCRIBED IN FORM 10-Q
<F2> PRO FORMA AS ADJUSTED FOR RECAPITALIZATION AND OFFERING AS DESCRIBED IN
FORM 10-Q
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Richard A. Waldron, Chief Financial Officer of SciClone Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(the "Registrant"), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based
on my knowledge:

        (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant, to which this
        certification is attached as an exhibit (the "Report"), fully complies
        with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
        1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

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

Dated: November 7, 2002                           /s/  Richard A. Waldron
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Richard A. Waldron
                                                  Chief Financial Officer
III 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 629 

Designating June 2020 as ‘‘Great Outdoors Month’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 18, 2020 

Mr. DAINES (for himself, Mr. PETERS, Mrs. SHAHEEN, Mr. KING, Mr. 

CRAMER, Ms. MCSALLY, Mr. GARDNER, and Ms. HIRONO) submitted the 

following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Designating June 2020 as ‘‘Great Outdoors Month’’. 

Whereas hundreds of millions of individuals in the United 

States participate in outdoor recreation annually; 

Whereas Congress enacted the Outdoor Recreation Jobs and 

Economic Impact Act of 2016 (Public Law 114–249; 130 

Stat. 999) to assess and analyze the outdoor recreation 

economy of the United States and the effects attributable 

to the outdoor recreation economy on the overall economy 

of the United States; 

Whereas the Outdoor Recreation Satellite Account updated in 

September 2019 by the Bureau of Economic Analysis of 

the Department of Commerce shows that outdoor recreation contributed more than $427,000,000,000 of current-dollar gross domestic product to the economy of the 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 629 IS 

United States in 2017, comprising approximately 2.2 percent of the current-dollar gross domestic product; 

Whereas the Outdoor Recreation Satellite Account shows 

that, in 2017, the outdoor recreation sector experienced 

faster growth in real gross output, compensation, and 

employment than the overall economy of the United 

States, while also providing 5,200,000 jobs across the 

United States; 

Whereas the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 (Public 

Law 116–6; 133 Stat. 13) encouraged the Department of 

Commerce to continue its work with the Outdoor Recreation Satellite Account; 

Whereas regular outdoor recreation is associated with economic growth, positive health outcomes, and better quality of life; 

Whereas many outdoor recreation businesses are small businesses, which have been heavily impacted by the COVID– 

19 pandemic; 

Whereas, as a result of the COVID–19 pandemic, many outdoor recreation businesses have experienced decreases in 

sales and have furloughed or laid off employees; 

Whereas outdoor recreation businesses are cornerstones of 

rural communities and outdoor recreation is part of the 

national heritage of the United States; and 

Whereas June 2020 is an appropriate month to designate as 

‘‘Great Outdoors Month’’ to provide an opportunity to 

celebrate the importance of the great outdoors: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 629 IS 

1 (1) designates June 2020 as ‘‘Great Outdoors 

2 Month’’; and 

3 (2) encourages all individuals in the United 

4 States to responsibly participate in recreation activi5 ties in the great outdoors during June 2020 and 

6 year-round. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
### Request for Additional Information - Mathew Roderick 9-AWA-AVS-333Exemptions (FAA)

Dear Mr. Roderick:
This letter is to inform yo u that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA-2015-2388). Th is information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

 Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Operat ions Manual (MPTOM) which is required by Order 89 00.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to proceed without this m anual and remove closed

- set filming from your proposed operation please inform of us of your intention by the requested response date listed below.

Please submit the addi tional information (non

- proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit any propri etary information to t he FAA Headquarters or electronically via email to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive t he information described above by 9/10/2015. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without no tifying you further.
If you have any questions, please fe el free to contact us (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

Jake Troutman
Thank you for your intere st in aviation safety. FAA Office of Rulemakin g Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 12:31 PM To: matt@airequipco.com Cc: May, Rick (FAA) Pa g e 1 of 1 Request for Additional Info rmation - Mathew Roderic k

8/26/2015 htt p s://email.dot. g ov/owa/9-AWA-AVS-333Exem p tions @ faa. g ov/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note

...
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 on Form 10-Q of Da-Lite Screen Company, Inc. (the Company) for the period ending June 29, 2007
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Richard E. Lundin, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to and for purposes of 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to
§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 and results of operations of the Company.



/s/ Richard E. LundinRichard E. LundinChief Executive OfficerJuly 31, 2007
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 1
April 22, 2016 Mr. Jeffrey Crawford Bureau ofAir Quality 5 POST OFFICE SQUARE , SUITE 100 BOSTON, MA 02109-3912

Maine Department ofEnvironmental Protection 17 State House Station Augusta, ME 0433 Dear Mr. Crawford: Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide comments on the Maine Department of Environmental Protection's (DEP) proposed revisions to Chapter 100, Definitions. EPA appreciates Maine DEP's effort in revising Chapter 100 as it relates to the state's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting program. We have provided one comment below concerning how Maine DEP calculates the baseline concentration ofparticulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter (commonly referred to as PM2.s) for purposes ofan ambient increment detennination. The Chapter 100 definition of"ambient increment," states: "To identify baseline emissions from a source for ambient increment determination, the Department shall presume actual emissions from ... 

### Calendaryear 2012 (emphasis added) for PM2.s." Chapter I00(11 ) . The Chapter 100 definition of"baseline concentration," states: "The actual PM2.s emissions increases or decreases at any source occurring after 

### October 20, 2010 (emphasis added), shall not be included in the baseline concentration but shall be included in the determination ofthe increment consumed." Chapter 100(16)(A)(3). The dates contained in the above definitions are in conflict with one another. Maine DEP should revise the definition of "ambient increment" to require actual PM2.s emissions from calendar year 2010 be used (in lieu ofcalendar year 2012) for purposes ofdetermining baseline emissions in an ambient increment determination . Again, thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed revisions to Chapter 100 as it relates to the state's PSD pennitting program. 

### Ifyou have any questions, please contact Patrick Bird at (617) 918-1287. 

# S

t r t , tJ, fo> Ida E. McDonnell, Manager Air Permits, Toxics, and Indoor Programs Unit

Toll Free • 1-888-372 -7341 Internet Addre ss (U RL) • http :// www .epa.gov/region 1 Recycled/Recyclable •Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Postconsumer)
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-60138 Conference Calendar

__________________
TAREK ELAGAMY, Petitioner,

versus IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

- - - - - - - - - - Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

A-26 440 666

- - - - - - - - - - August 22, 1995 Before KING, JOLLY, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Tarek Elagamy petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) denial of his motion requesting that he be allowed to reopen his case in order to move for a suspension of deportation pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1254(a)(2). To succeed in a motion to reopen, the alien must establish prima facie eligibility for the relief sought. See I.N.S. v. Doherty , 502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992). Even if the alien has made out a primaNo. 95-60138 -2- facie case for relief, the BIA has the discretion to deny a motion to reopen. Id. This court reviews the BIA's denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion. Id. Elagamy contends that had the BIA granted his motion to reopen, he would have established that his deportation should have been suspended pursuant to § 1254(a)(2). Section 1254(a)(2) states that the Attorney General may suspend deportation in the case of an alien who, among other requirements, "has been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than ten years immediately following the commission of an act . . . constituting a ground for deportation . . . ." Elagamy argues that he "committed" his deportation-worthy violation in 1983, when he lied to immigration officials about whether he resided with his wife, rather than in 1986 when he was convicted of the offense. In Brown v. I.N.S , however, this court dismissed the petitioner's request for suspension of deportation pursuant to § 1254(a)(2) because he had not been in the United States for ten years since the date of his conviction of a deportation-worthy crime. 856 F.2d 728, 731 (5th Cir. 1988). "[I]t is the firm rule of this circuit that one panel may not overrule the decisions of another." United States v. Taylor , 933 F.2d 307, 313 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 502 U.S. 883 (1991). Accordingly, Elagamy's petition for review is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because this petition is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
**Exhibit 31.1**

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 

I, Richard E. Lundin, as Chief Executive Officer of Da-Lite Screen Company, Inc.,certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Da-Lite Screen Company, 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, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3. Based on myknowledge, 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 periodspresented in this report; 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

(a) Designed such disclosure controlsand procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors: 

(a) Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: July 29, 2008 

 

 

22
Case: 1:18-cv-00343-TSB Doc #: 15 Filed: 02/13/19 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 122
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

RICHARD A. DAVIDSON, 

 CASE NO. 2:18-CV-00495 

 Petitioner, CHIEF JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY 

 Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers 

 v. 

WARDEN, WARREN 

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, 

 Respondent. 

ORDER 

 On May 17, 2021, the Court issued an Opinion and Order denying Petitioner’s Motion for 

Relief from Judgment, Motion to Amend the Motion for Relief from Judgment, and Motion to take 

Judicial Notice (ECF Nos. 45, 47, 48.) (ECF No. 52.). Petitioner has filed a Motion for a 

Certificate of Appealability and Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 58, 

60.) 

 The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit will not entertain an appeal from 

the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion unless the Petitioner first obtains a certificate of appealability. 

Johnson v. Bell, 605 F.3d 333, 339 (6th Cir. 2010). To obtain a certificate of appealability, the 

Petitioner must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 

2253(c)(2). “The petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's 

assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 

338 (2003) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). “Thus, in determining whether 

to grant a COA in the Rule 60(b) context, this court asks ‘whether a reasonable jurist could 

conclude that the District Court abused its discretion in declining to reopen the judgment.’” Lomax 

Case: 2:18-cv-00495-ALM-EPD Doc #: 64 Filed: 12/09/21 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 613
2 

v. Larose, No. 18-4217, 2019 WL 2447061, at *2 (6th Cir. 2019) (citing Buck v. Davis, -- U.S. --, 

--, 137 S.Ct. 759, 777 (2017)). 

 The Court is not persuaded that Petitioner can meet this standard here or that a reasonable 

jurist could conclude that the Court abused its discretion in declining to grant Petitioner’s motion. 

Therefore, Petitioner’s Motion for a Certificate of Appealability (ECF No. 58) is DENIED. 

The Court certifies that the appeal would not be in good faith. Petitioner’s Motion for 

Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis (ECF No. 60) is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

 ________________ 

 ALGENON L. MARBLEY 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

DATED: December 9, 2021 

 

 

Case: 2:18-cv-00495-ALM-EPD Doc #: 64 Filed: 12/09/21 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 614
EXHIBIT 32

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 Cross Timbers Royalty Trust (the Trust) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge:

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

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



|              |  |                                         |  |                    
|------------- |  | --------------------------------------- |  | -------------------
|              |  | Bank of America, N.A.,                 
|              |  | Trustee for Cross Timbers Royalty Trust
|              |  |                                        
|July 21, 2010 |  | By                                      |  | /S/ NANCY G. WILLIS
|              |  |                                         |  | Nancy G. Willis    
|              |  |                                         |  | Vice President
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This Schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Financial Statements of New Retail Concepts, Inc. at March 31, 1998 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such Financial Statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                        MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                  187,827
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                            44,755
<ALLOWANCES>                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        420,195
<PP&E>                                  101,657
<DEPRECIATION>                          101,657
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        2,728,342
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   731,458
<BONDS>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                 64,235
<OTHER-SE>                            1,832,649
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          2,728,342
<SALES>                                 385,266
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        385,266
<CGS>                                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         1,386,063
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        (507,578)
<INCOME-TAX>                              5,429
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    (513,007)
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                           (513,007)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                              (.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                              (.09)
        


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

CHRISTOPHER FELTY,
Plaintiff, Case No. 3:18-cv-179
vs.
COMMISSIONER OF District Judge Walter H. Rice

SOCIAL SECURITY,

Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman

Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge Michael J. Newman (Doc. #17), to whom this case was referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b), and noting that no objections have been filed thereto and that the time for filing such

objections under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) has expired, hereby ADOPTS said Report and

Recommendation.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

I;

2.

The Report and Recommendation (Doc. #17) is ADOPTED in full;
The Commissioner’s non-disability determination is REVERSED;

This matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner under the Fourth Sentence
of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further proceedings; and

This case is terminated on the docket of this Court.

Date:_de~le-+9 Lode tte

WALTER HERBERT RICE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE