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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         106,153
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   68,759
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     54,261
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               244,783
<PP&E>                                          51,555
<DEPRECIATION>                                  20,768
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 302,816
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           46,797
<BONDS>                                        119,417
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           176
<OTHER-SE>                                     138,425
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   302,816
<SALES>                                         57,879
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                57,879
<CGS>                                           31,582
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   18,121
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,953
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,809
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,858
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,951
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (6,664)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,713)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.10)
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 23.2**
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**
     Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement onForm S-8 (No. 333-121940) pertaining to the Carmike Cinemas, Inc. 2004 Incentive StockPlan. The Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-102765) pertaining to CarmikeCinemas, Inc. Non-Employee Directors Long-Term Stock Incentive Plan, theRegistration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-102764) pertaining to Carmike Cinemas,Inc. Employee and Consultant Long-Term Stock Incentive Plan, and the RegistrationStatement on Form S-8 (No. 333-85194) pertaining to Carmike Cinemas, Inc. 2002 StockPlan of our report dated March 3, 2003, except for the restatement for leaseaccounting as described in the Company’s Form 10-K/A filed on December 6, 2004, asto which the date is December 6, 2004, with respect to the consolidated financial statementsand schedule of Carmike Cinemas, Inc. and subsidiaries for the yearend December 31, 2002 included inthe Annual Report (Form 10-K),for the year ended December 31, 2004.
 
/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
 
March 15, 2005
Lee EAKINS v. James FERGUSON et al.

2160125

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

February 24, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 25 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 25

    Disapproving the action of the District of Columbia Council in 
  approving the Minor Consent for Vaccinations Amendment Act of 2020.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 11, 2021

Mr. Cloud (for himself, Mr. Palmer, Mr. Duncan, Mr. LaMalfa, Mr. Posey, 
 Mr. Jordan, and Mr. Babin) submitted the following joint resolution; 
      which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Disapproving the action of the District of Columbia Council in 
  approving the Minor Consent for Vaccinations Amendment Act of 2020.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the Congress disapproves 
of the action of the District of Columbia Council described as follows: 
The Minor Consent for Vaccinations Amendment Act of 2020 (D.C. Act 23-
532), enacted by the Council of the District of Columbia on December 
23, 2020, and transmitted to Congress pursuant to section 602(c)(1) of 
the District of Columbia Home Rule Act on February 1, 2021.
                                 <all>
```
Samuel A. NESBITT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2859

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 7, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Revision of Payment Terms of the Plea Agreement dated as of July 17, 2007



 EXHIBIT 10.82 
 Revision to Payment Terms of Plea Agreement, dated as of July 17, 2007, between the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District 
 of New York and Orphan Medical, Inc. 
 In the first quarter of 2009, the Federal District Court in the Eastern
District of New York entered two orders that resulted in an amendment of the obligations under the Plea Agreement, dated as of July 17, 2007, between the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York and Orphan Medical, Inc. (Exhibit
10.57C to the Annual Report on Form 10-K with which this exhibit is filed) as follows: 
 Deferred payment of an installment of a criminal fine from
January 15, 2009 to October 15, 2009 
 Deferred payment of an installment of criminal restitution from January 15, 2009 to October 15,
2009
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,023
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,323
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        37,522
<OTHER-SE>                                    (34,199)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,323
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
L.J.B., a child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-2976

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 1, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Joseph SILKY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-3472

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[March 8, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1855

MELVIN MCCOY JERMAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

AT&T CORPORATION,

Defendant - Appellee.

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

Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:20-cv-00384-MOC-DSC)

Submitted: February 16, 2023 Decided: February 21, 2023

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Melvin McCoy Jerman, Appellant Pro Se. David A. Grassi, Jr., ECHOLS FIRM, LLC, 

Rock Hill, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1855 Doc: 18 Filed: 02/21/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Melvin McCoy Jerman appeals the district court’s order granting summary 

judgment to AT&T Corporation (“AT&T”) in Jerman’s civil action. We have reviewed 

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by 

the district court. Jerman v. AT&T, No. 3:20-cv-00384-MOC-DSC (W.D.N.C. July 20, 

2022). We deny AT&T’s motion to strike Jerman’s pro se supplemental brief. 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

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1855 Doc: 18 Filed: 02/21/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
---

EXHIBIT 32.1





Certification of Chief Executive Officer


Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





I, Clinton H. Severson, Chief Executive Officer of Abaxis, Inc. (the “Registrant”), do hereby certify in accordance with the requirements set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. 1350), as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of 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) or section 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and





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





Dated: February 9, 2011





By:/s/ Clinton H. SeversonClinton H. SeversonPresident and Chief Executive Officer





This certification accompanies this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q.  The certification is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Abaxis, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, whether made before or after the date of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q and irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in any such filing.
Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont Division

Phillip Meredith

Texas

Case: 2:18-md-02846-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 327 Filed: 01/31/20 Page: 1 of 6 PAGEID #: 3560
Case: 2:18-md-02846-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 327 Filed: 01/31/20 Page: 2 of 6 PAGEID #: 3561
Case: 2:18-md-02846-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 327 Filed: 01/31/20 Page: 3 of 6 PAGEID #: 3562
01/12/2015

Case: 2:18-md-02846-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 327 Filed: 01/31/20 Page: 4 of 6 PAGEID #: 3563
Case: 2:18-md-02846-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 327 Filed: 01/31/20 Page: 5 of 6 PAGEID #: 3564
Christopher T. Kirchmer

Provost Umphrey Law Firm LLP

490 Park St.

Beaumont, Texas 77701

email: ckirchmer@pulf.com

Office: 409-835-6000

Texas Bar No. 00794099

Case: 2:18-md-02846-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 327 Filed: 01/31/20 Page: 6 of 6 PAGEID #: 3565
March 10, 2015 

Mr. Leo P. Daniels 

117 Cheyenne Trail 

Wilmington NC 28409 

Dear Mr. Daniels: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It 

explains why we cannot process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Cannot Process Your Request 

We entered your February 9, 2015, exemption request on behalf of Leo Daniels Entertainment 

into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-0319), but we are unable to process your request any 

further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy 

enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following: 

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief and the extent of 

the relief you seek. 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Nia Daniels 

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division 

Enclosure
Exhibit 99.01

Reconciliation of EBITDA Loss to Net Loss

                                                                 For the Year
In thousands                                                  Ended December 31,
                                                                2004       2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Net loss                                                     $(6,285)   $(5,938)
                                                             ------------------

Interest expense                                               1,221        817
Charge for warrant issued to related party for debt            2,469         --
guaranty
Income tax (benefit)                                            (328)      (115)
Depreciation and amortization                                  1,397      1,218
Other non-operating (income) expense                            (121)        11
                                                             ------------------

EBITDA Loss                                                  $(1,647)   $(4,007)
================================================================================

EBITDA is a non-US GAAP financial measure. A definition of EBITDA as used by us,
and an explanation for our use of EBITDA, may be found in Management's
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.
2013 UT App 107

_________________________________________________________



### T HE 

### U TAH 

### C OURT OF 

### A PPEALS

S TATE OF U TAH

, Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

D ARRELL E UGENE W ASHINGTON

, Defendant and Appellant.

Per Curiam Decision

No. 20130070

‐ CA

Filed April 25, 2013

Second District, Ogden Department

The Honorable Michael D. DiReda

No. 011901799

Darrell Eugene Washington, Appellant Pro Se

John E. Swallow and Marian Decker, Attorneys for Appellee

Before J UDGES O RME

, M C H UGH

, and R OTH

.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Darrell Eugene Washington appeals the trial court’s order

denying his motions to compel discovery, which were filed in his

criminal case. This appeal is before the court on its own motion for

summary disposition based on the lack of a substantial question for

review. We affirm.

¶2 Washington pleaded guilty to a third degree felony in 2001.

In 2012, he sought to challenge his conviction, filing the motions to

compel the production of evidence that are the subject of this

appeal. His motions were a mix of arguments and requested relief,

including document requests and assertions of ineffective assis

‐

tance of counsel and a coerced plea. Additional argument in the

motions indicated that Washington’s efforts were aimed towardState v. Washington

20130070

‐ CA 2013 UT App 107 2 filing a petition for a determination of factual innocence under

Utah’s Post

‐ Conviction Remedies Act (PCRA). See Utah Code Ann.

§§ 78B

‐ 9

‐ 101 to

‐ 405 (LexisNexis 2012).

¶3 The trial court determined that it lacked jurisdiction over

Washington’s requests because he had filed the motions seeking

civil relief in his criminal case. Generally, once a trial court in a

criminal proceeding “imposes a valid sentence, it loses subject

matter jurisdiction over the case.” State v. Montoya

, 825 P.2d 676,

670 (Utah 1991). We see no error in the trial court’s determination,

particularly given that the relief Washington appears to be seeking

is within the scope of the PCRA.

¶4 The PCRA “establishes the sole remedy” for a person

challenging a conviction after other legal remedies have been

exhausted. Utah Code Ann. § 78B

‐ 9

‐ 102(1). Proceedings under the

PCRA are civil in nature and are governed by the rules of civil

procedure. Id. To obtain a hearing to determine factual innocence,

a petition must be filed in the district court under the PCRA and

rule 65C of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. § 78B

‐ 9

‐ 402; Utah

R. Civ. P. 65C.

¶5 Accordingly, the relief Washington seeks is available only

through the provisions of the PCRA, a civil proceeding. There is no

such relief available through his criminal case. As a result, the trial

court did not err in finding that it lacked jurisdiction over the

motions filed by Washington in his criminal case.

¶6 Affirmed.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTHAPPELLATE DISTRICT AT SANANTONIO, TEXAS

Ex Parte, JUAN TORRES APPELLANT

VS. CAUSENO. 04-15-00182-CR The State ofTexas APPELLEE

ADVISORY TO THE COURT

Counsel for Appellant, Juan Torres has yet to receive Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law from the 38th Judicial District Court. An online search of the Fourth Court Website, does not show the receipt of such filing from the 38th Judicial District Court. Appellant's brief is incomplete without such Findings.

Respectfully submitted,

Roy R. Barrera, Sr. SBOT 01808000

NICHOLASANDBARRERA, PC 424 E. Nueva Street San Antonio, Texas78205 (210) 224-5811 (210) 224-5890 ACCEPTED 04-15-00182-CR FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 6/1/2015 3:03:39 PM KEITH HOTTLE CLERK
M E M O RAND U M

T O : F i l e

F R O M : R o r y M a y s

, A i r P l a nn i n g O f

f i c e

, R e g i o n 9

, U

. S

. E P A

D A TE : S e p t e m

b e r 20

, 201 2

R E : S ec t i o n 128 ; C o n t r o l O ff i c e r ’ s A g e n t s / R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s i n W a s h o e C o u n t y

, N e v a da

O n S e p t e m

b e r 4

, 201 2 W a s h o e C o u n t y H e a l t h D i s t r i c t A i

r Q u a l it y M a n a g e m e n t D i s t r i c t

( W C HD

- A Q M D ) s ub m i tt e d a c o mm e n t l e tt e r t h a t n o t e d a mi n o r c o rr e c t i o n / c l a r i f i ca t i o n

r e g a r d i n g E P A ’ s c o n f

l i c t o f i n t e r e s t / C A A s ec t i o n 128 t ec hn i c a l s upp o r t d o c u m e n t . T h i s

c o mm e n t c l a r i f

i e d t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t H ea l

t h O f f i ce r i s t h e C o n t r o l O f

f i ce r f o r a i r qu a l it y pu r p o s e s

i n Wa s h o e C o u n t y

.

I s p o k e b y p h o n e w i t h D a n I n ou y e o f W C HD

- A Q M D t o d a y t o i n q u i r e i f t h e A Q M D D i r ec t o r

a n d B r a n c h C h i e f o f t h e P e r m i t t i n g a n d C o m p l i a n c e B r a n c h w e r e d e s i g n a t e d a s c o n t r o l o f f i ce r s

,

pu r s u a n t t o W a s h o e C o u n t y A i r Q u a l i t y R e g u l a t i o n ( A Q R ) 010

. 042

, o r w e r e d e s i g n a t e d a s

a g e n t s o r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f t h e C o n t r o l O f f i ce r

, pu r s u a n t t o A Q R 020

. 020

. M r

. I n o u y e a f f i r m e d

t h a t i t i s t h e l a tt e r

– t h e A Q M D D i r e c t o r a n d B r a n c h C h i e f a r e a g e n t s o r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f t h e

C o n t r o l O f

f i ce r

.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, C. Christian Winkle, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Mariner HealthCare, Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement ofa material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s first fiscal quarter that has materially affected, oris reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 a. All significant deficienciesand material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarizeand report financial information; and  b. Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
Date: May 7, 2004     /s/ C. Christian Winkle C. Christian Winkle President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)