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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND NOTES THERETO INCLUDED IN THE
COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       5,414,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                402,602,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             448,700,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                     57,500,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       209,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  93,430,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               448,700,000
<SALES>                                    227,516,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              206,211,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             18,602,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 7,136,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         11,466,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                11,466,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.57
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.57


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1

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, 2006 (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 9, 2006 |  | /s/ Alan F. Schultz    
|                      |  | Alan F. Schultz        
|                      |  | Chief Executive Officer



25
Frank CARTER, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-3080

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 6, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>          5
<MULTIPLIER>       1,000

<S>                                  <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    FEB-03-2001
<PERIOD-START>                       APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                         JUL-29-2000
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        3-MOS
<CASH>                                    54,819
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                              1,405
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                               49,346
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         115,481
<PP&E>                                   130,160
<DEPRECIATION>                            61,668
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           191,169
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     55,580
<BONDS>                                    7,293
<COMMON>                                      14
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                               121,982
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             191,169
<SALES>                                  108,513
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         108,513
<CGS>                                     84,991
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             84,991
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          22,073
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          (574)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            2,023
<INCOME-TAX>                                 766
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        1,257
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                               1,257
<EPS-BASIC>                                $0.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                              $0.09





</TABLE>
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 22-1707

___________________________ 

United States of America

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Thomas Charles Mart

 Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids

____________ 

Submitted: August 3, 2022

Filed: August 8, 2022

[Unpublished]

____________ 

Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Thomas Charles Mart appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he 

pled guilty to drug and firearm offenses. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 

1291, this court affirms. 

1

The Honorable C.J. Williams, United States District Judge for the Northern 

District of Iowa.
-2- 

Counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that Mart’s sentence is unreasonable. The district court 

did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Mart. The court properly considered the 

factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and there is no indication that it overlooked 

a relevant factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or 

committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors. See United States 

v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc). Further, the court 

imposed the statutory minimum sentence. See United States v. Woods, 717 F.3d 

654, 659 (8th Cir. 2013). 

This court has independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 

U.S. 75 (1988), and finds no non-frivolous issues for appeal. 

The judgment is affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

______________________________
Exhibit 32.1



                           Immtech International, Inc.


             Certification of President and 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 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 December 31, 2003, 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
            -------------------------------------------
            Name:   T. Stephen Thompson
            Title:  President & Chief Executive Officer
            Date:   February 9, 2005
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of CFO 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Argonaut Group, Inc. (the
Company) for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Mark W. Haushill, as Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the
Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to the § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:



|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CERTIFIED this 1stday of March, 2007.



/s/ Mark W. HaushillMark W. Haushill Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
Continuing Abatement Order filed January 10, 2023 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-22-00687-CV

____________

DANIEL MANK, Appellant

V.

AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 4

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1181128

CONTINUING ABATEMENT ORDER

On November 15, 2022, we abated this appeal for sixty days. On January 5,

2023, appellant filed an unopposed motion requesting that we continue the 

abatement of this appeal. That motion is GRANTED.

The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this court’s 

active docket until February 14, 2023. The appeal will be reinstated on this

court’s active docket at that time, or when the parties file a motion to dismiss the 

appeal or other dispositive motion. The court will also consider an appropriate 

motion to reinstate the appeal filed by any party, or the court may reinstate the 

appeal on its own motion.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Zimmerer, Spain, and Hassan.
#### Jamara WASHINGTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Larry DAIL, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6535

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 17, 2017

Decided: August 22, 2017

Jamara Washington, Appellant Pro Se. Nicholaos George Vlahos, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before KEENAN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jamara Washington seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012)' petition and denying his motions for reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). 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. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Washington has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauper-is, 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*
#### Gregory C. BONTEMPS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEVES; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-17176

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 14, 2017 *

Filed February 23, 2017

Gregory C. Bontemps, Pro Se

David Charles Goodwin, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Offlce of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed, R. App. P, 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Gregory C. Bontemps, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district *533court’s summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force and retaliation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Williams v. Paramo,*775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Bontemps failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he exhausted his administrative remedies as required under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), or whether administrative remedies were effectively unavailable. *See Ross v. Blake,*— U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 1850, 1858-60, 195 L.Ed.2d 117 (2016) (exhaustion not required when administrative remedy is unavailable); *Woodford v. Ngo,*548 U.S. 81, 90, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (“[Pjroper exhaustion of administrative remedies ... means using all steps that the agency holds out, and doing so properly (so that the agency addresses the issues on the merits).” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

Bontemps’s request for appointment of counsel, attached to the opening brief, is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 32.1


                  BESTNET COMMUNICATIONS CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES


                            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 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of BestNet
Communications Corp. (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2004,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I Stanley L. Schloz, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

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

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



/s/  Stanley L. Schloz
------------------------------
     Stanley L. Schloz
     President


December 14, 2004
Willie BILLUE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-4054

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 16, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### IN RE: David L. SMITH, Petitioner.

No. 17-1497

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 27, 2017

Decided: July 31, 2017

David Lee Smith, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

*141Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

David Lee Smith petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to investigate the decisions of district court judges and a North Carolina clemency administrator in proceedings related to his state conviction. Smith also seeks an order reducing his state sentence to time served. We conclude that Smith is not entitled to mandamus relief.

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. *Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court,*426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976); *United States v. Moussaoui,*333 F.3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. *In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n,*860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. *In re Lockheed Martin Carp.,*503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). Further, this court does not have jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief against state officials, *Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg Cty.,*411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969), and does not have jurisdiction to review final state court orders, *Dist. of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman,*460 U.S. 462, 482, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983).

The relief sought by Smith is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in for-ma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 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.

*PETITION DENIED*
( \

## !~ 

# FILED JUN 2 22012 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Clerk, U.S. District &Bankruptcy Courts for the District of Columbia HERBERT D. PHIPPS, Plaintiff,

v. Civil ActionNo. ERIC HOLDER, U.S. Attorney General, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 

# 12 1026

This matter is before the Court onthe plaintiffs applicationto proceed 

### informapauperis and his

### pro se complaint. The Court will grant the application and dismiss the complaint. 

### Itappears that the plaintiffis serving a term ofimprisonment imposed bythe United States District for the SouthernDistrict ofIndiana upon his conviction for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. 

### See Compl. at 4. He claims that the statute under whichhe was prosecuted and sentenced "was neverbeenpassed by Congress," 

### id. at 5, rendering the "Federal Indictment
... invalid," 

### id. at 8, and causing him "to be
... falsely imprisoned." 

### !d. The plaintiffbrings a claim against the Attorney General under

### Bivens v. Six Unknown NamedAgents of the FederalBureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), 1and asks the Court to declare the statutes invalid and to orderhis immediate release. Compl. at 43-44. The Court construes the complaint as a challenge to the legality ofthe plaintiffs criminal sentence. He must present such a claimto the sentencing court in a motion under 28 U.S.C. 

### § 2255. 

### Taylor v. US. Bd. of Parole, 194 F.2d 882, 883 (D.C. Cir. 1952) (stating that a motion 

### Bivens recognized a cause ofaction for damages against federal officials acting under color oftheir authority who violate a claimant's constitutional rights. 

# / 

# 1

### under Section 2255 is the proper vehicle for challenging the constitutionality ofa statute under which a defendant is convicted). Section 2255 provides specifically that: [a] prisoner in custody under sentence ofa court establishedby Act ofCongress claiming the right to be released upon the ground that the sentence was imposed in violation ofthe Constitution or laws ofthe United States, or that the court was without jurisdiction to impose such sentence, or that the sentence was in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or is otherwise subject to collateral attack, may move the court which imposed the sentence to vacate, set aside or correctthe sentence. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a) (emphasis added). Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the complaint. An Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

United States District Judge
Exhibit 99.9



Certification of Chief Financial 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 filing of this Amendment
No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 40F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014 (the “Report”) by New Gold Inc.
(the “Company”), I, Brian W. Penny, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge that:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: May 27, 2015





/s/ Brian Penny

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



Brian W. Penny
Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1

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 March 31, 2009 (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: May 8, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/ Alan F. Schultz    
|                   |  |  |  | Alan F. Schultz        
|                   |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer