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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Protocol
Systems, Inc.'s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as of September 30, 1996
and Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations for the nine months ended
September 30, 1996 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000883322
<NAME> PROTOCOL SYSTEMS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           6,897
<SECURITIES>                                    17,109
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,170<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     12,239
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                45,808
<PP&E>                                          11,660
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,323
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  57,650
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,056
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            87
<OTHER-SE>                                      49,068
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    57,650
<SALES>                                         49,529
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                49,529
<CGS>                                           22,001
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   22,001
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                23,649
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,559
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,646
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,233
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,233
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.24
<FN>
<F1>net of allowance
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, Successor in Interest to Wachovia Bank, N.A., as Trustee for MLMI2005-A8, Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; William and Marsha Morton; Carl R., Makarewicz; Overbrook Gardens Association, Inc., Appellees.

Case No. 2D17-917

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 16, 2018

Jacqueline J. Brown and Sean P. Belmudez of Clarfield, Okon & Salomone, P.L., Tampa, for Appellant.

Dean A. Morande and Michael K. Winston of Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., West Palm Beach, for Appellee Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Joseph A. Heintz, Jr., Port Charlotte, for Appellees William and Marsha Morton.

Robert M. Pretschner and Joel W. Walters of Walters Levine & Lozano, Sarasota, for Appellee Carl R. Makarewicz.

No appearance for Appellee Overbrook Gardens Association, Inc.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA, BLACK, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
Exhibit 32.1


Certification of the Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. 1350

















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 of Arrayit Corporation(the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ending December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, William L. SKlar certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant
to § 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 results of operations of the Company.








/s/  William L. Sklar





William L. Sklar


Director


July 30, 2009

























1














Exhibit 32.2


Certification of the Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. 1350




















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 of Arrayit Corporation(the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ending December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, William L. Sklar certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 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 results of operations of the Company.








/s/  William L. Sklar





William L. Sklar


Director





July 30, 2009






2
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Homero MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11398

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 21, 2017

James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Homero Martinez, Pro Se

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Homero Martinez, federal prisoner # 45120-177, moves for a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the denial of his motion to amend his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, which had been denied approximately ten months earlier. As Martinez is not seeking to appeal from the final order *154in a habeas proceeding, he does not need a COA. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). A COA is therefore DENIED as unnecessary. *See id.*

Once a final judgment has been entered, a plaintiff may seek to amend only by appealing or by seeking to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 or 60. *See, e.g., Rosenzweig v. Azurix Corp.,*332 F.3d 854, 864 (5th Cir. 2003). Martinez’s motion to amend pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, which was filed well after the entry of the final judgment denying his § 2255 motion, was a “meaningless, unauthorized motion” over which the district court lacked jurisdiction. *See United States v. Early,*27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir. 1994). Because Martinez has appealed from the denial of unauthorized motion, we AFFIRM the district court’s ruling.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *154published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Sandra Pickens NORRIS and Cecil Albert Norris, Appellants/Cross Appellees, v. Hector I. GONZALEZ-HERNANDEZ and Christian Blocker, Appellees/Cross Appellants.

Case No. 5D16-4354

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed June 5, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.19(b)








November 3, 2018






Reference is made to the Second Amended and Restated Executive Employment Agreement, entered into on February 25, 2014 and effective as of January 1, 2014 (the “Agreement”), by and between you and Mylan Inc.  The parties hereto acknowledge and agree that the Term of Employment as set forth in Section 2 of the Agreement shall be extended to April 1, 2019.  All other provisions of the Agreement, as modified by the foregoing, shall remain in full force and effect.




	
		
	MYLAN INC.

	

by

	 
	/s/ JoEllen Lyons Dillon

	 
	Name:   JoEllen Lyons Dillon

	 
	Title:   Authorized Signatory








	
		
	 
	/s/ Heather Bresch

	 
	Heather Bresch
George SOULELLIS, Appellant, v. Markos BAHAS, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2592

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 20, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1465 

To require a local government to waive sovereign immunity to receive any 

grant funds from the Department of Justice if such local government 

has defunded a municipal police department, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 1, 2021 

Ms. MALLIOTAKIS (for herself, Mr. GIMENEZ, and Ms. SALAZAR) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To require a local government to waive sovereign immunity 

to receive any grant funds from the Department of Justice if such local government has defunded a municipal 

police department, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Right to Remain Safe 

5 Act of 2021’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1465 IH

1 SEC. 2. INELIGIBILITY FOR DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

2 GRANTS WITH RESPECT TO DEFUNDING A 

3 MUNICIPAL POLICE DEPARTMENT. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi5 sion of law, to be eligible for any grant funding from the 

6 Department of Justice, a local government applying for 

7 such a grant shall certify to the Attorney General that 

8 the municipal police department of such local government 

9 has not been defunded in either the current or prior fiscal 

10 year in which the local government is applying for such 

11 grant. 

12 (b) EXCEPTIONS.— 

13 (1) INABILITY TO PAY.—A local government 

14 that demonstrates that the municipal police depart15 ment was defunded because of an inability to pay, 

16 including demonstrating decreases throughout the 

17 budget of the local government, shall be eligible for 

18 grant funding from the Department of Justice. 

19 (2) WAIVER OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY.—A local 

20 government that has defunded the municipal police 

21 department shall be eligible for grant funding from 

22 the Department of Justice if such local government 

23 waives sovereign immunity with respect to a cause of 

24 action against the local government by an individual 

25 for property damages or damages for personal injuVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:35 Apr 14, 2021 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1465.IH H1465

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1465 IH

1 ries as a result of the municipal police department 

2 being defunded. 

3 (c) LOCAL GOVERNMENT DEFINED.—In this section, 

4 the term ‘‘local government’’ means a municipality, city, 

5 town, township, a rural community, or unincorporated 

6 town or village. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.1





STATEMENT
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND


CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350





In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended
September 30, 2009 (the “Form 10-Q/A”) of Grayson Bankshares, Inc. (the
“Company”), we, Jacky K. Anderson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and
Blake M. Edwards, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to our knowledge:





(a)
            the
      Form 10-Q/A fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
and





(b)
            the
      information contained in the Form 10-Q/A fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company
      as of and for the periods presented in the Form
  10-Q/A.











By:           /s/ Jacky K.
Anderson                                                      Date:  April 9,
2010


Jacky K. Anderson


Chief Executive Officer











By:       
  /s/ Blake
M.
Edwards                                                                      
Date:  April 9,
2010


Blake M. Edwards


Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 21
  Subsidiary
    
    Jurisdiction of IncorporationAmericas
Job Exchange, Inc.
    
    DelawareAvasta, Inc.
    
    CaliforniaClearBlue Technologies Management, Inc.
    
    DelawareClearblue Technologies/Chicago-Wells, Inc.
    
    DelawareClearblue Technologies/Las Vegas, Inc.
    
    DelawareClearblue Technologies/Los Angeles, Inc.
    
    DelawareClearblue Technologies/Oak Brook, Inc.
    
    DelawareClearblue Technologies/Vienna, Inc.
    
    DelawareClearblue Technologies/Dallas, Inc.
    
    DelawareClearblue Technologies/New York, Inc.
    
    DelawareClearblue Technologies/San Francisco, Inc.
    
    DelawareConxion Corporation
    
    CaliforniaIntrepid Acquisition Corp.
    
    DelawareJupiter Hosting, Inc.
    
    DelawareLexington Acquisition Corp.
    
    DelawareNaviSite Disposition, LLC
    
    DelawareNaviSite India Private Limited
    
    IndiaNaviSite Europe Limited
    
    UKSurebridge
Services, Inc.
    
    Delaware
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 22

- 00234

- CR

April TOLBERT

- DAVIS

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2018

- CR

- 4920 Honorable Jefferson Moore , Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE WATKINS

, JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ , AND JUSTICE VALENZUELA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

SIGNED February 14, 2024.

_____________________________ Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Demon TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-7325

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 17, 2016

Decided: November 22, 2016

Robert Demon Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

*839Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Robert Demon Taylor seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certifí-cate 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 motion 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 Taylor has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Additionally, we construe Taylor’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either:

> (1) newly discovered evidence that .. .- would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or

> (2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.

28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). Taylor’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion.

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
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 2012 - 0 8 30 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 201 2 - CE - 0 2 6 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **:** 

### G. Keith Noles **Date**

**Branch Manager Date**
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          12,833
<SECURITIES>                                    22,976
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,854
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (109)
<INVENTORY>                                      8,854
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                50,161
<PP&E>                                          26,638
<DEPRECIATION>                                (14,990)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  63,507
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,300
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        214
<COMMON>                                         1,970
<OTHER-SE>                                      55,023
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    63,507
<SALES>                                         26,597
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                26,597
<CGS>                                           21,484
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   21,484
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (12,854)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (12,854)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.90)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 23


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We consent to the  incorporation by reference in the  Registration  Statement on
Form S-8  (333-94995)  pertaining  to the 1996 CSI Stock Option  Plan,  the 1999
Section 3(i) Share Option Plan,  the 1999 Employee  Stock  Purchase Plan and the
1999 Non-Employee Directors Stock Option Plan of Commtouch Software Ltd., of our
report  dated  February  14,  2001 with  respect to the  consolidated  financial
statements and schedule of Commtouch Software Ltd. included in its Annual Report
on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2000, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.



Tel-Aviv, Israel
May 15, 2001


                                  KOST, FORER & GABBAY
                       A member of Ernst & Young international
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Bryan Randall BARRETT, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-51337 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 18, 2017

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Bryan Randall Barrett, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Bryan Randall Barrett has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Barrett has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate *143review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
## APPENDIX A:

Yellowstone County (part) Nonattainment A rea Attainment Demonstration

January 16, 2015 Letter from Montana Department of Environmental Quality Air Resources Management Bureau Chief, Dave Klemp, letter to EPA Region 8 Air Director, Carl Daly, “Request for Yellowstone County (part) SO
2 Nonattainment Area Clean Data Determination”

January 16, 2015 Letter from Montana Department of Environmental Quality Air Resources Management Bureau Chief, Dave Klemp, to EPA Regional Administrator, Shaun McGra th, Coburn Road Monitoring Data and Certification

February 9, 2013 Bison Engineering Inc. “A Summary of Historical Ambient SO
2 Monitoring in the Billings Area For Billings

- Laurel Air Quality Technical Committee”