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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         820,732
<SECURITIES>                                32,885,599
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,808,757
<ALLOWANCES>                                   113,636
<INVENTORY>                                  3,030,689
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            39,451,611
<PP&E>                                       4,401,813
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,768,949
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              46,756,457
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,482,177
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       112,581
<OTHER-SE>                                  43,154,480
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                46,756,457
<SALES>                                      1,624,605
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,624,605
<CGS>                                        2,846,411
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,846,411
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,451,982
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           (6,673,788)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,035
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (6,198,548)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (6,198,548)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (6,198,548)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.55)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.55)
        

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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE AUDITED
FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  OF  ENVIRONMENTAL  REMEDIATION  HOLDING  CORPORATION  FOR
SEPTEMBER  30,  1998 AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY  BY  REFERENCE  TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000799235
<NAME>                        Environmental Remediation Holding Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         35,185
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  193,736
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               476,784
<PP&E>                                         7,703,414
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,025,314)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 11,716,460
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          5,125,341
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       2,600
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2,498,273)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   11,716,460
<SALES>                                        213,186
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               247,060
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  11,590,848
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             2,474,633
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (11,343,788)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (11,343,788)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (11,343,788)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.47)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.47)
        

</TABLE>
Ronald Eugene WEEMS v. STATE

CR-15-1375

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

March 17, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. 1350

(SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Valassis Communications, Inc. (the
Company), does hereby certify, to the best of his knowledge and belief that:



(1) The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 (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 Company.



|                      |  |                        
|--------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Dated: August 8, 2005 |  | /s/ Robert L. Recchia  
|                      |  | Robert L. Recchia      
|                      |  | Chief Financial Officer



27
**Exhibit 24.2**

 

 
| STATE OF  TEXAS  | § |   |
|------------------|--------|--------|
| COUNTY OF DALLAS | § |   |

 

POWER OF ATTORNEY

 

Know all menby these presents, that I, TILMAN J. FALGOUT, III, a Director of AMERICA’SCAR-MART, INC., a Texas corporation, do constitute and appoint MARK D. SLUSSERmy true and lawful attorney-in-fact, with full power of substitution, for me inany and all capacities, to sign, pursuant to the requirements of the Securitiesand Exchange Act of 1934, the Annual Report on Form 10-K for AMERICA’SCAR-MART, INC. for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2005 and to file the samewith the Securities and Exchange Commission and National Association ofSecurities Dealers, Inc., together with all exhibits thereto and otherdocuments in connection therewith, and to sign on my behalf and in my stead, inany and all capacities, any amendments to said Annual Report, incorporatingsuch changes as said attorney-in-fact deems appropriate, hereby ratifying andconfirming all that said attorney-in-fact, or his substitute may do or cause tobe done by virtue hereof.

 

In witnesswhereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 5th day of July, 2005.

 

 
|   | /s/ Tilman  J. Falgout, III |   |
|--------|-----------------------------|--------|
|   | TILMAN J.  FALGOUT, III     |

 

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

 

Before me this5th day of July, 2005, came TILMAN J. FALGOUT, III, personally knownto me, who in my presence did sign and seal the above and foregoing Power ofAttorney and acknowledged the same as his true act and deed.

 

 
|   | /s/ Paula  Hodges |   |
|--------|-------------------|--------|
|   | NOTARY  PUBLIC    |

 

----
* Senior Judge Hall was assigned to the panel in this case but

died prior to the time the decision was filed. The decision is

filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7662

JOHN FRANK BOWEN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees,

District Judge. (CA-96-43-5-V)

Submitted: May 18, 1999 Decided: September 21, 1999

Before NIEMEYER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HALL,* Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Frank Bowen, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Bowen appeals the district court’s order denying Bowen’s petition for removal of his state court criminal prosecution to federal

district court and denying his motion to restrain the State of

North Carolina. We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate

judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. See

Bowen v. State of North Carolina, No. CA-96-43-5-V (W.D.N.C. Sept.

30, 1998). We note that Bowen’s notice of removal was improperly

filed because it was untimely. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 1446(c)(1) (West

1994 & Supp. 1999) (requiring that a notice of removal in a criminal case be filed within thirty days after arraignment). Because

the notice of removal was untimely, the district court did not err

in failing to remand or to conduct an evidentiary hearing. 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
SAT Report

PMN Number: P-13-0047

SAT Date: 11/6/2012

Print Date: 2/4/2013

Related cases:

Health related cases: 

Ecotox related cases: 

Concern levels:

Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments

Level of Concern: 2 3

 Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments

1 2 2 Linear

2 3 2 Branched

Exposure Based Review:

Health: No

Ecotox: Yes

Routes of exposure: Health: Dermal Drinking Water Inhalation 

Ecotox: All releases to water

Fate: ;

P2Rec Comments:

Comment: No Comment

Keywords:

 Keywords: 

IRR/POSS CORR-E,S,L,MM

LUNG

LIVER

UNCERT SENS-S,L

AQUATOX-A,C

Summary of Assessment:

 Fate:
Fate Summary: P-13-0044-48

FATE: Estimations for 

Liquid with MP < 25 C (E)

log Kow = 5.24 (E) 

S = Dispersible / 1.20 mg/L at 25 C (ICB / E)

VP < 1.0E-6 torr at 25 C (E)

BP > 400 C (E)

H < 1.00E-8 (E)

log Koc = 5.40 (E)

log Fish BCF = 1.75 (E)

log Fish BAF = 3.02 (E) 

POTW removal (%) = 90 via sorption and biodeg

Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg = Linear wk; Highly branched ≥ mo

Sorption to soils/sediments = v.strong

PBT Potential: Linear P1B2; Highly branched P2B3

*CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = negl

 Health:

 Health Summary: Absorption is poor through the skin, moderate through 

the GI tract, and good through the lung, based on analogs. There are concerns for severe 

irritation/possible corrosion to all exposed tissues, and for cationic binding to lung membranes, 

based on the of the PMN substance. There also is concern for liver 

toxicity and uncertain concern for dermal and respiratory sensitization, based on 

 Ecotox:

Test Organism Test 

Type

Test End 

Point

Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 1.3 aliphatic amine SAR

daphnid 48-h LC50 0.21 aliphatic amine SAR

green algal 96-h EC50 0.078 amide SAR

fish _ chronic value 0.012 amide SAR

daphnid _ chronic 

value

0.023 aliphatic amine SAR

algal _ chronic 

value

0.038 aliphatic amine SAR

Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50 _

Sewage Sludge _ Chronic 

Value

_

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for aliphatic amines and amides; 

SAR chemical class = aliphatic amine, amide; ; liquid; log Kow = 4.72 (EPI); S = 6.4 

mg/L or dispersible in water at 25 C (P); pH7; effective concentrations based on 100% active 

ingredients and mean measured concentrations; hardness < 150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and TOC 
<2.0 mg/L;

Factors Values Comments

Assessment Factor 10

Concentration of Concern 

(ppb)

1 amide SAR

SARs aliphatic amines and amides

SAR Class aliphatic amine, amide

Ecotox Category None

Ecotox Factors Comments: 

 SAT Chair: J. Kwiat
No. 28,776.

#### W. C. Robinson, *Appellant,*v. W. C. Mutchmore, *Appellee.*

(278 Pac. 18.)

Opinion filed June 8, 1929.

*Grant Stafford,*of Winfield, for the appellant.

*Harold W. Herrick,*of Winfield, for the appellee.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Burch, J.:

The action was one to quiet title. The court found generally for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.

The action was the statutory action authorized by the civil code *420(R. S. 60-1801). The petition alleged plaintiff was owner and in possession of described land; alleged that defendant claimed some right or interest therein which was without authority in law, and which constituted a cloud on plaintiff’s superior title; and prayed judgment quieting plaintiff’s title. The purpose and meaning of the code section were expounded by Chief Justice Kingman in the opinion in the case of *Eaton v. Giles,*5 Kan. 24 (1869). The possession essential to maintenance of the statutory action is actual possession by the owner himself or by his tenant. This interpretation of the statute has not been departed from.

In this instance the real estate comprised the north fifty feet of what had once been a city block. Plaintiff abstracts no testimony whatever relating to the subject of possession. Defendant abstracts testimony showing he was in actual possession when plaintiff purchased, and has been in actual possession ever since. The only claim to possession made by plaintiff at'the trial was that his agent had authorized a circus and a carnival company to use the whole block. There was no evidence that the circus or the carnival company was a tenant within the meaning of the statute. There was evidence that the fifty-foot strip of land was not actually used by either the circus or the carnival company, and there was no evidence that when the action was commenced plaintiff was in possession of any part of the block by circus, by carnival company, or by any other occupant.

Plaintiff contends defendant claimed ownership and possession, and that the court was authorized to determine title pursuant to the decision in the case of *Reitz v. Cooper,*123 Kan. 755, 256 Pac. 813. In the cited case plaintiff commenced the statutory action. Defendant converted the action into one to quiet his own title by proper allegations of possession and title and prayer for affirmative relief. The result was, the question whether plaintiff or defendant was in actual possession became immaterial. In this case defendant answered by general denial. The answer in form denied defendant claimed any interest in the land, and it was necessary he should amend. He did so by excepting his claim as follows:

> “Comes now the above-named defendant, and for his answer to the petition of the plaintiff herein filed, denies each and every allegation therein contained, éxcept that defendant claims to be the owner of said property and in possession of said property.”

The amended answer did not pray for affirmative relief. The *421result was, plaintiff could not succeed unless he proved actual possession by himself or by his tenant.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
#### UTILITY ASSOCIATES, INC., Appellant v. DIGITAL ALLY, INC., Appellee

2016-1626

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

January 13, 2017

Stephen M. Schaetzel, Meunier Carlin & Curfman, LLC, Atlanta, GA, argued for appellant. Also represented by David S. Moreland,

Jennifeb C. Bailey, Erise IP, P.A., Overland Park, KS, argued for appellee. Also represented by Adam Prescott Seitz.

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam (Lourie, Taranto, and Chen, Circuit Judges).

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 86.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7536

JAIRUS TYRONE HENLEY,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

MIKE SLAGEL,

 Respondent - Appellee.

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

Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:18-cv-00473-FDW)

Submitted: August 25, 2020 Decided: September 10, 2020

Before AGEE, THACKER, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jairus Tyrone Henley, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Jairus Tyrone Henley seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his

28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. 

Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional 

right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 

U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Henley has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the 

appeal. 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. 

DISMISSED
Iran RODRIGUEZ, Appellant, v. AVATAR PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-2104

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 7, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,015
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   23,590
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,153
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,412
<PP&E>                                          14,242
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,283
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  38,745
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,393
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        20,663
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    38,745
<SALES>                                         76,773
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                76,773
<CGS>                                           60,269
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   74,086
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 771
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,915
<INCOME-TAX>                                       156
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,759
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,759
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.56
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.56
        


</TABLE>
Kenneth Winston SANDERS v. STATE

CR-16-0136

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

March 17, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
II 

Calendar No. 329 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1298 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 2, 2022 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

APRIL 4 (legislative day, MARCH 31), 2022 

Reported by Mr. PETERS, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 1233 North Cedar Street in Owasso, Oklahoma, as the ‘‘Technical Sergeant Marshal Roberts Post 

Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. TECHNICAL SERGEANT MARSHAL ROBERTS 

4 POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 1233 North Cedar Street in 

7 Owasso, Oklahoma, shall be known and designated as the 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1298 RS

1 ‘‘Technical Sergeant Marshal Roberts Post Office Build2 ing’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

6 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Technical Sergeant 

7 Marshal Roberts Post Office Building’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 329 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1298 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostMarshal Roberts Post Office Building’’. Owasso, Oklahoma, as the ‘‘Technical Sergeant al Service located at 1233 North Cedar Street in 

APRIL 4 (legislative day, MARCH 31), 2022 

Reported without amendment 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Proposed Rule: Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas EmissionsMeeting DocumentationDateStaff Contact Information(Name, email, phone #)Name ofOrganization(Attach list ofall attendeesnames andemails ifpossible)Summary of Discussion (e.g., applicability, reportingrequirements, etc.)WrittenCommentsProvided?Did they alsosubmit toDocket?Date sentto EPACCD05/25/10EmailCorrespondenceJen BohmanEPABohman.Jennifer@epa.gov202-343-9548GiedriusAmbrozaitis,Alliance ofAutomobileManufacturesJohn CabanissAssociation ofInternationalAutoManufacturers.Mr. Cabaniss and Mr. Ambrozaitis.On March 22, 2010, Administrator Jackson signed a proposedrule that would require reporting of fluorinated greenhousegases (fluorinated GHGs) from certain types of facilities thatemit, import or export 25,000 metric tons or more of carbondioxide equivalent per year. Included in this proposal arerequirements to report the import and export of fluorinatedGHGs contained in pre-charged equipment and closed-cellfoams (subpart QQ).EPA intended to include imports and exports of HFCscontained in pre-charged motor vehicle air conditioners in theproposed subpart QQ reporting requirement. The proposedrule defines "appliance" as "any device which contains anduses a fluorinated greenhouse gas refrigerant and which is usedfor household or commercial purposes, including any airconditioner, refrigerator, chiller,or freezer." We interpret thisto include motor vehicle air conditioners, which is consistentwith our interpretation of “appliance” under the CAA Title VIozone protection regulations (see, for example, the definitionof "MVAC" under section 82.152 as "any appliance that is amotor vehicle air conditioner as defined in 40 CFR part 82subpart B" [regarding servicing of MVACs]).Comments on the proposed rule must be received on or beforeJune 11, 2010.For information, including links to the proposed rule, factN/AN/Asheets, and technical support documents, visit:http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/subpart/fgas.html