alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PowerSecure International, 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 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:  November 4, 2010
    /s/ Christopher T. HutterChristopher T. HutterExecutive Vice President, Chief Financial
Officer, Treasurer and Assistant Secretary
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                             440
<SECURITIES>                                    30,615
<RECEIVABLES>                                      422
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                32,111
<PP&E>                                           5,508
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,342
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  35,386
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,554
<BONDS>                                         10,401
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            21
<OTHER-SE>                                      22,361
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    35,386
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,043
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,837
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (191)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,599)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,599)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,599)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.18)


</TABLE>
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF AFRICAN 

AMERICAN-OWNED MEDIA, a 

California limited liability company; 

ENTERTAINMENT STUDIOS 

NETWORKS, INC., a California 

corporation,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

COMCAST CORPORATION, a 

Pennsylvania corporation,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-56479

D.C. No.

2:15-cv-01239-

TJH-MAN

ORDER

Filed February 4, 2019

Before: MARY M. SCHROEDER, MILAN D. SMITH, 

JR., and JACQUELINE H. NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
2 NAAAOM V. COMCAST

ORDER

The panel unanimously votes to deny the petition for 

panel rehearing. Judge M. Smith and Judge Nguyen vote to 

deny the petition for rehearing en banc, and Judge Schroeder 

so recommends. The full court has been advised of the 

petition for rehearing en banc, and no judge of the court has 

requested a vote on it. Fed. R. App. P. 35. The petition for 

panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are 

DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000882343
<NAME> 90BC.TXT
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         149,487
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  134,756
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               284,243
<PP&E>                                       9,567,920
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,551,495
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,300,668
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           27,491
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,273,177
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,300,668
<SALES>                                        325,204
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               327,396
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  199,654
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                127,742
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            127,742
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   127,742
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    10.63
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF MARCH 31, 1998, AND THE RELATED
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1998
AND THE NOTES THERETO, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND NOTES.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          91,634
<SECURITIES>                                   304,162
<RECEIVABLES>                                   30,620
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     13,835
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               440,251
<PP&E>                                          53,257
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 775,264
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           39,670
<BONDS>                                        287,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            46
<OTHER-SE>                                     438,073
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   775,264
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                48,766
<CGS>                                            8,093
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   32,104
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,142
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,857
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,693
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,164
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,164
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.15
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer

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 PowerSecure International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A, Amendment No. 1, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2015 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Sidney Hinton, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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) 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 result of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       |  |                                      
|---------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: January 25, 2016 |  | /s/ Sidney Hinton                    
|                       |  | Sidney Hinton                        
|                       |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7562

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

GREGORY ROLAND PRUESS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees,

District Judge. (CR-99-48; CA-01-149-5)

Submitted: January 27, 2005 Decided: February 4, 2005

Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gregory Roland Pruess, Appellant Pro Se. C. Nick Williams,

Jennifer Marie Hoefling, Assistant United States Attorneys,

Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Gregory Roland Pruess, a federal prisoner, seeks to

appeal the district court’s order construing his motion filed

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), as a second or successive motion under

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and dismissing it for lack of

jurisdiction. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

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

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000); see Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 368-69,

374 n.7 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner

satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists

would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that

any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court also are

debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-

38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.

Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Pruess has not made the

requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Additionally, we construe Pruess’ notice of appeal and

informal brief on appeal as an application to file a second or

successive § 2255 motion. See United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d

200, 208 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 496 (2003). In order
- 3 -

to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a

prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) a new rule of

constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the

Supreme Court to cases on collateral review; or (2) newly

discovered evidence that would be sufficient to establish by clear

and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have

found the movant guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)

(2000); 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ¶ 8. Pruess’ claims do not satisfy either

of these conditions. Therefore, we decline authorization to Pruess

to file a successive § 2255 motion. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (SUBSECTIONS (A) AND

(B) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States
Code), each of the undersigned officers of Unit Corporation a Delaware corporation (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 (the Form 10-K) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of December 31, 2008 and December 31, 2007 and for the years ended December 31,
2008, 2007 and 2006.

Dated: February 24, 2009



|    |  |                                                       
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------------
|    | 
|By: |  | /S/     LARRY D.
PINKSTON                             
|    |  | Larry D. Pinkston Chief Executive Officer and Director

Dated: February 24, 2009



|    |  |                                                       
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------------
|By: |  | /S/    DAVID T.
MERRILL                               
|    |  | David T. Merrill Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K or as a separate disclosure document.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Unit Corporation and will
be retained by Unit Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff on request.
Docket No: FAA-2015-8435 Dir ID: 2015-NM-049-AD
1 Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined th a t

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. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 98-40352

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

JAMES TERRELL DURHAM,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

(1:97-CR-74-1)

March 1, 1999

Before DAVIS, DUHÉ, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 1

James Terrell Durham appeals his jury conviction for

possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine and conspiracy

to distribute and possess with intent to distribute crack cocaine.

He argues that the district court violated his rights under the

Confrontation Clause by admitting hea rsay statements of a

confidential informant and abuse d its discretion by denying his

motion to compel the Governmen t to disclose the confidential2

informant’s identity and by admitting evidence of Durham’ s prior

felony drug conviction.

The district court did not violate the Confrontation Clause by

admitting testimony regarding the confidential informant’s

statements. The evidence that was offered to show only why law

enforcement officials took certain actions wa s not hearsay. S ee

United States v. Evans

, 950 F.2d 187, 191 (5th Cir. 1991).

Although t he informant’s description of Durham was hearsay, the

district court did not abuse i ts discretion by admitting that

evidence because Durham opened the door to the question on crossexamination and, if admitted erroneously, the evidence did not have

a substantial impact on the verd ict. S ee id. ; United States v.

Walker , 613 F.2d 1349, 1353 (5th Cir. 1980).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying

Durham’s request for the disclosure of the inform ant’s identity.

The informant’s testi mony would not have helped Durham’s defense

significantly, and Durham does not dispute the Gov ernment’s

interest in nondisclosure. S ee United States v. Sanchez

, 988 F.2d

1384, 1391 (5th Cir. 1993).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting

evidence of Durham’s prior state felony conviction for delivery of

cocaine. The district court determined that the evidence was

material to an issue other than Durham’s character and that its

probative value outweighed its pote ntial prejudice. S ee United

States v. Beechum , 582 F.2d 898 (5th Cir. 1978) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.
TS – 11KK6F, Physical and Chemical Properties Worksheet, FTIR Trace

Reacted
#### Hempstead County *v.*Star Publishing Company.

4-2765

Opinion delivered December 5, 1932.

*Garrigcm*& *Monroe,*for appellant.

*W. S. Atkins*and *0. A. Graves,*for appellee.

Mehaepy, J.

The appellee, Star Publishing Company, filed its claim in the county court of Hempstead County for $1,211.50, which was 50 cents a tract for publishing delinquent tax list. The court disallowed the claim as filed, but did allow a claim of $605.75.

An appeal was prosecuted to the circuit court of Hempstead County, where it was tried, and the court instructed the jury to find for the plaintiff, Star Publishing Company, the full amount of $1,211.50. There was a verdict and judgment for that amount. The ease is here on appeal.

The evidence tended to show that the county judge had refused to pay more than 25 cents for each separate tract of land.

Judge Higgason testified that Mr. Hawkins, the publisher of the Washington Telegraph, a paper published in Hempstead County, agreed to publish the list for 25 cents a tract, and Hawkins himself testified that he agreed to publish it for that amount. Several witnesses testified about conversations between the county .judge and the publisher of the Star Publishing Company, and the publisher of the paper testified that he never did agree that he would publish the list in the Star Publishing Com*595pany for 25 cents a tract. The evidence shows that the connty judge stated in all these conversations that he would not pay more than 25 cents a tract.

The evidence showed that the clerk delivered the list to the Star Publishing Company; that it was customary to do this, and that it was customary to publish the list in one paper one time, and the other paper the next time.

The law provides, in act 92 of the Acts of 1929, that the fees for advertising the sale of delinquent land shall be 50 cents for each tract or town lot advertised to be sold for delinquent taxes, which amount shall be added to the tax as cost of the sale. The act then provides how the fees shall be computed and paid, etc.

The effect of this act is to require the taxpayer to pay 50 cents for advertising, and that this 50 cents shall be added to the cost. We know of no law, however, which prohibits the county judge from making a contract with the publisher of a paper to advertise the list for a smaller sum, 'and, if such contract is made, it is binding between the parties to the contract, the publisher and the county.

There is some conflict in the evidence, and we think it was a question of fact as to whether there was a contract made between the 'Star Publishing Company and the county judge. This question should be submitted to and determined by the jury.

The judgment of the circuit court is therefore reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

WESTERN DIVISION 

 

Mark Neal 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

Experian Information Solutions, Inc., 

Et al., 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No.: 3:17-cv-0077 

Judge Thomas Rose 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL: 

TERMINATION ENTRY 

 

 The Court having been advised by counsel for the parties that the above 

matter has been settled, IT IS ORDERED that this action is hereby DISMISSED, 

with prejudice as to the parties, provided that any of the parties may, upon good 

cause shown within 45 days, reopen the action if settlement is not consummated. 

 Parties intending to preserve this Court’s jurisdiction to enforce the 

settlement should be aware of Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 114 

S.Ct. 1673 (1994), and incorporate appropriate language in any substituted 

judgment entry. 

 The Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement 

between the parties, if necessary. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

July 24, 2017 *s/Thomas M. Rose 

 ____________________________________ 

 Honorable Thomas M. Rose 

 United States District Judge 

Case: 3:17-cv-00077-TMR Doc #: 17 Filed: 07/24/17 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 79
L 

, -· •• • ~- ,.;. I 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF omo 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel. 

STEPHANIE CHEEK, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

AEGEAN APPAREL INTERNATIONAL, ) 

INC., MEHMET PANA YIRCI, and ) 

RUTH NALIE PANA YIRCI-ARMSTRONG, ) 

Defendants. 

) 

) 

District Judge Walter H. Rice 

Civil No. 3:18-cv-00256 

FILED UNDER SEAL 

ORDER 

The United States having intervened in this action, pursuant to the False Claims Act, 31 

U.S.C. § 3730(b)(4), the Court rules as follows: 

IT IS ORDERED that, 

1. the complaint be unsealed; 

2. the United States serve its Complaint upon defendants, together with this Order, 

within sixty ( 60) days; 

3. the submissions at docket numbers 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 18 remain under 

seal and not be made public or served upon the defendant, as 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(3) expressly 

authorizes these in camera filings to apprise the Court alone of the Government's investigation; 

and 

4. the seal be lifted on all other contents of the Court's file and all matters occurring 

in this action after the date of this Order. 

Case: 3:18-cv-00256-WHR Doc #: 22 Filed: 05/16/22 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 89
IT IS SO ORDERED, 

This -\ '3'\'1-\ day of ~ 

-... •. 

, 2022. 

United States District Judge 

Case: 3:18-cv-00256-WHR Doc #: 22 Filed: 05/16/22 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 90
EV MARCO ISLAND, LLC, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Robert BABER, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-2602

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

January 25, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Appeal is dismissed.
Case: 1:18-cv-00590-SJD Doc #: 100 Filed: 09/22/21 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 5294
Case: 1:18-cv-00590-SJD Doc #: 100 Filed: 09/22/21 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 5295