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>               DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                          29,413
<SECURITIES>                    28,285
<RECEIVABLES>                  103,864
<ALLOWANCES>                      4,626
<INVENTORY>                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     0
<PP&E>                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 169,029
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                0
<BONDS>                         46,995
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                0
<PREFERRED>                          0
<COMMON>                            55
<OTHER-SE>                      44,462
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>   169,029
<SALES>                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  6,407
<CGS>                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   435
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>               2,394
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  1,862
<INCOME-TAX>                       717
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              1,145
<DISCONTINUED>                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                      0
<CHANGES>                            0
<NET-INCOME>                     1,145
<EPS-PRIMARY>                      .20
<EPS-DILUTED>                      .20
        




</TABLE>
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 Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on Form 10-Q of Immtech International, Inc. (the
"Company") for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, T.
Stephen Thompson, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 results of operations
           of the Company.

                       /s/ T. Stephen Thompson
                       T. Stephen Thompson
                       President & Chief Executive Officer
                       August 9, 2004
Case 1:01-cv-00116-SSB-TSH Document 117 Filed 12/12/2005 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:01-cv-00116-SSB-TSH Document 117 Filed 12/12/2005 Page 2 of 2
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 6085** 

KABIL ANTON DJENASEVIC , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; UNITED STATES FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION BECKLEY HEALTH SERVICE DEPARTMENT; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Defendants

- Appellees , and DR. HUGHES, DDS , Defendant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia , at Beckley

. Irene C. Berger , District Judge. ( 5:14

- cv - 14596 )

Submitted : July 20 , 2016 Decided: August 3, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by un published per curiam opinion

.2 Kabil Anton Djenasevic, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Michael Horn, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee s . Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: Kabil Anton Djenasevic appeals the district court’s order s accepting the recommendations of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his complaint filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b)(1), 2671

- 2680 (2012) , and denying his request for leave to amend his complaint.

T he district court originally reject ed Djenasevic’s request to amend as moot based on its dismissal of his original complaint. That dismissal was, however, vacated by this court’s decision in Djenasevic v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 604 F. App’x 328 (4th Cir. June 16, 2015) (No. 15

- 6076) . On remand, the court did not directly rule on the request to amend . Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) provides that “[t] he court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires ,” which we have construed to mean “t hat leave to amend a pleading should be denied only when the amendment would be prejudicial to the opposing party, there has been bad faith on the part of the moving party, or the amendment would have been futile.” Laber v. Harvey , 438 F.3d 404, 426 (4th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because the district court has not ruled on the merits of Djenasevic’s request to amend , we remand for the district court to specifically address Djenasevic’s request and any Government response

.4 T urning to Djenasevic’s FTCA claim, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the disposition of that claim for the reasons stated by the district

court. Djenasevic v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , No. 5:14

- cv - 14596 (S.D. W . Va. Jan. 11, 2016). 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 IN PART ,

VACATED IN PART , AND REMANDED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
CONSOLIDATED  BALANCE SHEET AND  CONSOLIDATED  STATEMENTS OF  OPERATIONS,  ENDED
AUGUST 31, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1999
<CASH>                                         889,620
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               898,149
<PP&E>                                       1,007,330
<DEPRECIATION>                               (643,771)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,574,395
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          279,709
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          1
<COMMON>                                         3,021
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,290,085
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,574,395
<SALES>                                         13,580
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,580
<CGS>                                            9,468
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,468
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               838,456
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,995
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,086,895)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,086,895)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.37)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.37)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2


Certification of Chief Financial Officer
 
 Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of CytRx Corporation (the “Company”) hereby certifies that:
 
 (i) the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 
 (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 Date:March 11, 2011
By:
/s/ JOHN Y. CALOZJohn Y. CalozChief Financial Officer
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 906), or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to CytRx Corporation and will be retained by CytRx Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
 
 The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an Exhibit to the Form 10-K and shall not be considered filed as part of the Form 10-K.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

GREGORY C. SHAFFER,

Plaintiff,

vs.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY,

Defendant.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No. 1:18-cv-592

Judge Timothy S. Black

Magistrate Judge Stephanie Bowman

DECISION AND ENTRY

ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 9) 

AND TERMINATING THIS CASE IN THIS COURT

This case is before the Court pursuant to the Order of General Reference to United 

States Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman. Pursuant to such reference, the 

Magistrate Judge reviewed the pleadings filed with this Court and, on July 15, 2019, 

submitted a Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 9). No objections were filed. 

As required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has 

reviewed the comprehensive findings of the Magistrate Judge and considered de novo all 

of the filings in this case. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court finds that the 

Report and Recommendation should be and is hereby adopted in its entirety. 

Accordingly: 

1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 9) is ADOPTED; 

2. The Commissioner’s decision is REVERSED and REMANDED for 

further proceedings, pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); and

3. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly, whereupon this case is 

TERMINATED on the docket of this Court. 
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 8/21/2019 s/ Timothy S. Black

Timothy S. Black

United States District Judge
EERE Information Center

Programs and Offices

Search Help More Search Options

Printable Version

Residential Heating Products

Public Meeting to Discuss the

Preliminary Analyses in the

Energy Conservation

Standards Rulemaking

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is

holding an informal public meeting to discuss

and receive comments on: (1) the product

classes that DOE analyzed for purposes of

amending energy conservation standards for

certain residential heating products; (2) the

analytical framework, models, and tools that

DOE is using to evaluate standards for these

products; (3) the results of preliminary

analyses performed by DOE for these

products; and (4) the potential energy

conservation standard levels derived from

these analyses that DOE could consider for

these products. This public meeting is also

providing DOE with an opportunity to respond

to questions from interested parties.

For more information, please visit the Notice

of Public Meeting Web page.

The following documents are available as

Adobe Acrobat PDFs. Download Adobe Reader.

Meeting Materials

Energy Conservation Standards for

Residential Water Heaters, Direct

Heating Equipment, and Pool Heaters:

Notice of Public Meeting and Availability

of the Preliminary Technical Support

Document, Federal Register, 74 FR

1643, January 13, 2009 (PDF 93 KB)

Public Meeting Presentation (PDF 1.3

MB)

Public Meeting Agenda (PDF 112 KB)

Transcript: (PDF 561 KB). A transcript

DATE: February 9, 2009

TIME: 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. ET

LOCATION:

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Room 1E-245

Washington, DC 20585

Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards: Residential Heating P... http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/...

1 of 2 11/9/2009 1:57 PM

EE-2006-STD-0129 COMMENT 55
will also be available for public

inspection in the Building Technologies

Program Reading Room, between 9:00

a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except Federal holidays. To

schedule an appointment or to purchase

this transcript, contact:

Brenda Edwards

U.S. Department of Energy

Building Technologies Program

950 L'Enfant Plaza, 6th Floor

Washington, DC 20024

Telephone: 202-586-2945

Contact Information

Mohammed Khan

Project Manager for Heating Products

(202) 586-7892

Printable Version

Building Technologies Program Home | EERE Home | U.S. Department of Energy

Webmaster | Web Site Policies | Security & Privacy | USA.gov

Content Last Updated: 10/30/2009

Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards: Residential Heating P... http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/...

2 of 2 11/9/2009 1:57 PM

EE-2006-STD-0129 COMMENT 55
Exhibit 15

October 26, 2009

Bank of America, N.A. as Trustee

for the Cross Timbers Royalty Trust:

Re: Registration Statements No. 33-55784 and No. 333-91460 on Form S-8

With respect to the subject registration statements,
we acknowledge our awareness of the use therein of our report dated October 26, 2009 related to our review of interim financial information.

Pursuant to Rule 436 under the Securities Act of 1933 (the Act), such report is not considered part of a registration statement prepared or certified by an independent registered public accounting firm, or a report prepared or certified by
an independent registered public accounting firm within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.



|                 
|-----------------
|KPMG LLP         
|                 
|Fort Worth, Texas
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-4087
In Re: THOMAS S. PRITT, Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-98-176) Submitted: April 27, 2000 Decided: May 2, 2000Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas S. Pritt, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* To the extent that Pritt intended this petition as a noticeof appeal from the district court's denial of his mandamus petition, his appeal is untimely. See Fed. R. App. P. 4. 2 PER CURIAM: Thomas S. Pritt has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus from this Court. His petition challenges the district court’s orderdenying attorney’s fees following his acquittal on multiple criminal charges. We deny the writ. Mandamus is a drastic remedy to be used only in extraordinary circumstances. See Kerr v. United States Dist. Ct , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). Mandamus relief is only available when there are no other means by which the relief sought could be granted, see In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987), and may not be used as a substitute for appeal. See In re Catawba Indian Tribe , 973 F.2d 1133, 1135 (4th Cir. 1992). Pritt could have appealed the denial of his motion, but he failed to do so. * Accordingly, we denyPritt’s petition for mandamus relief. 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.

PETITION DENIED
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 36944 & 36945 & 36946

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JACOB WAYNE JUDD,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2010 Unpublished Opinion No. 480

Filed: May 25, 2010

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada

County. Hon. Deborah A. Bail, District Judge. 

Judgments of conviction and concurrent, unified sentences of ten years, with three 

years determinate for burglary, rape, and grand theft, affirmed.

Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Stephen D. Thompson, Special 

Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Ketchum, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before LANSING, Chief Judge, GUTIERREZ, Judge

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

In these consolidated cases, Jacob Wayne Judd was convicted of burglary, Idaho Code 

§ 18-1401, rape, I.C. § 18-6101(1), and grand theft, I.C. §§ 18-2403(1), 18-2407(1)(b). The 

district court imposed concurrent unified sentences of ten years, with three years determinate in 

each case. Judd appeals, contending that the sentences are excessive.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of a sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 
2

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Judd’s judgments of conviction and sentences are affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6159
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MONROE ROOSEVELT PARKER, JR., Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior District Judge. (CR-86-32-P, CA-95-321-3-P) Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 1, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Monroe Roosevelt Parker, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Clifford Carson Marshall, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Parker , Nos. CR-86-32-P; CA-95-321-3-P (W.D.N.C. Nov. 6, 1995). 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
Paulett WILLIAMS, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. Joseph Malcolm WILLIAMS, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1554

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

OCTOBER 02, 2017

ORDERED that appellant's notice of voluntary dismissal is recognized by the Court, and this appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Florida is hereby dismissed.
#### Watkins vs. Martin.

Where a party has recovered a judgment and received the amount of it from the defendant, ho will not be permitted *to*revorse the judgment on error.

*Motion to quash Writ of Error.*

Stillwell & Woodruff, for plaintiff.

'WilliaMS & MARTIN, for defendant.

Mr. Justice Compton

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The plaintiff in error seeks to reverse a judgment which ho recovered against the defendant in the court below, for $1,140, residue of debt, with damages and costs: and the defendant pleads in bar that the plaintiff caused an execution to issue on *15tlie judgment, which was afterwards, and before the issuance of the writ of error, fully paid off and satisfied.

It is insisted, on demurrer that the matters alleged in the plea, are not sufficient to bar the writ. We think they are. Where a party has recovered a judgment, and received the amount of it from the defendant, he will not be permitted to reverse the judgment on error. *Laughlin vs. Peebles,*1 *Penn. (Penrose & Watts,)*114. The counsel for the plaintiff has referred us to *Barthelemy vs. The People,*2 *Hill, (N. Y.)*248, but there is nothing decided in that case which conflicts with the view taken in this. There the judgment was against the parties seeking the reversal. They had been sentenced to confinement in the penitentiary, and it was insisted that the sentence of the court was satisfied, because it appeared on the face of the record that the term of confinement had elapsed. To this objection the court said there were two answers: first, they were not only sentenced to confinement, but each was also fined, and it was not apparent on the record that the fine of either had been paid: and second, the payment or satisfaction of an erroneous judgment *against*a party could never be allowed as a bar to a writ of error, even in a case where no restitution could follow as a legal consequence, and the reason given by the court is, that such a judgment against the party “is an inj ury *per se,*from which the law will intend he is, or will be damnified by its continuing against him unreversed.” In the case before us the judgment is not only satisfied, but it is also *in favor*of the party seeking the reversal.

The demurrer is overruled.