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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          13,773
<SECURITIES>                                     1,059
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,739
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (430)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                18,775
<PP&E>                                           3,310
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,892)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  22,037
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,680
<BONDS>                                             89
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            73
<OTHER-SE>                                      14,997
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    22,037
<SALES>                                          5,518
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,518
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,975
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,641
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  15
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,638)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,638)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,638)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  ($1.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  ($1.05)
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jonathan Lee OLIVER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 14-30157

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted January 18, 2017 *

Filed January 24, 2017

Timothy John Racicot, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USMI—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Missoula, MT, Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee

John Rhodes, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FDMT—Federal Defenders of Montana, Missoula, MT, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Jonathan Lee Oliver appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 100-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343; money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957; and structuring, in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 5324(a)(1). We dismiss.

Oliver contends that the district court procedurally erred in determining that his prior North Dakota state misdemeanor conviction for fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer should score a criminal history point under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(e). The government argues that this appeal should be dismissed based on the appeal waiver contained in the parties’ plea agreement. Reviewing de novo, *see United States v. Harris,*628 F.3d 1203, 1205 (9th Cir. 2011), we dismiss. Oliver’s waiver of “any and all right to directly appeal any aspect of the sentence” unambiguously encompasses the claim he raises on appeal. *See id.*Contrary to Oliver’s contention, the provision of the plea agreement that authorizes him, under certain circumstances, to collaterally attack his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 does not permit this direct appeal.

DISMISSED.

**

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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GREGORY ANDRE SMITH, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

K. KUMAR; L. GAMBOA, M.D., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-16444 

D.C. No. 5:15-cv-05720-BLF 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Beth Labson Freeman, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 11, 2018**

Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Gregory Andre Smith, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the 

district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging 

deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

APR 19 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-16444 

Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Smith failed 

to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were 

deliberately indifferent to his chronic foot pain. See id. 1057-60 (a prison official 

is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive 

risk to inmate health; a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment, 

medical malpractice, and negligence in diagnosing or treating a medical condition 

do not amount to deliberate indifference); Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1098 (9th 

Cir. 2006) (delays must result in substantial harm to constitute deliberate 

indifference).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on 

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

We reject as unsupported by the record Smith’s contention that the district 

court failed to consider the entire record.

Smith’s request for costs, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.

AFFIRMED.
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 September 30, 2010 (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: November 8, 2010 |  |  |  | /s/ Alan F. Schultz    
|                        |  |  |  | Alan F. Schultz        
|                        |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer
#### Mark James KONSAVICH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. MEEKS, Warden FCI Williamsburg, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6485

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 27, 2017

Decided: August 1, 2017

Mark James Konsavich, Appellant Pro Se.

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Mark James Konsavich appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition without prejudice. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant Konsavich leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Konsavich v. Meeks,*No. 1:16-cv-01829-RBH, 2017 WL 885353 (D.S.C. Mar. 3, 2017). 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*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Devon Raymus STURDIVANT, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13-7237

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 30, 2017

Decided: July 14, 2017

Devon Raymus Sturdivant, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina; Gretchen C. F. Shappert, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Before MOTZ, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*190PER CURIAM:

Devon Raymus Sturdivant filed a pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion seeking relief from his sentence. Subsequently, Sturdivant, through counsel, filed a supplement in which he also sought relief from his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) and through petitions for writ of error coram nobis and audita querela. The district court denied relief. Sturdivant appeals.

With respect to the denial of relief under § 2255, the district court’s 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 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 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 Sturdivant has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss this portion of the appeal.

The district court also denied relief under § 2241 and denied Sturdivant’s petitions for writ of error coram nobis and audita querela. With respect to this portion of the district court’s order, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Sturdivant v. United States,*Nos. 3:06-cr-00194-RCJ-1; 3:12-cv-00496-RJC, 2013 WL 2456030 (W.D.N.C. June 6,2013).

We deny the motion to redact sensitive information and 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 IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART*
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                        Pomeroy Computer Resources, Inc.
                 Exhibit 11 - Computation of Earnings Per Share
                    (in thousands, except per share amounts)


                                            Three Months Ended  Nine  Months  Ended
                                                 October  5,       October  5,
                                              ----------------  ----------------
                                               1999     2000     1999     2000
                                              -------  -------  -------  -------
<S>                                           <C>      <C>      <C>      <C>
BASIC
Weighted average common shares
outstanding                                    11,744   12,289   11,709   12,084
                                              =======  =======  =======  =======

Net income                                    $ 6,532  $ 8,187  $17,280  $22,078
                                              =======  =======  =======  =======

Net income per common share                   $  0.56  $  0.67  $  1.48  $  1.83
                                              =======  =======  =======  =======

DILUTED
Weighted average common shares
outstanding                                    11,744   12,289   11,709   12,084

Dilutive effect of stock options outstanding
during the period                                  87      254      115      220

Total common and common equivalent            -------  -------  -------  -------
shares                                         11,831   12,543   11,824   12,304
                                              =======  =======  =======  =======

Net income                                    $ 6,532  $ 8,187  $17,280  $22,078
                                              =======  =======  =======  =======

Net income per common share                   $  0.55  $  0.65  $  1.46  $  1.79
                                              =======  =======  =======  =======
</TABLE>


<PAGE>
#### Frederic Rohe, *Ex-parte.*

A warrant of commitment or mittimns, must not only run in the name of tho State, but it must set forth the offence with which the person is charged, or of which he stands convicted.

This was an application for a writ of habeas corpus. Rohe was brought before the Hon. Thomas S. Reynolds, Mayor of Little Rock, on the 10th of April, 1843, charged with an attempt to rescue, from the custody of the city constable, a person who was in his custody. He required no jury; and the Mayor, after hearing evidence, adjudged that the State recover of him, for the use of the city, $25 and costs. On the same d.ay, he issued the following warrant, by virtue of which Rohe was confined:

“ State of Arkansas, county of Pulaski, city of Little Rock. To the sheriff or jailer of said county: You are commanded to take the body of *Frederic Rohe,*and safely keep him until discharged by due course of law.” Which was signed by him as Mayor. The writ of habeas corpus being returned, the matter was argued by *Blackburn,*for the petitioner.

*By the*Court,

Paschal, J.

The mittimus returned by the sheriff sets forth no offence with which the prisoner is charged, or of which he,stands convicted; nor does the said precept run in the name of the State. When a man is imprisoned, the cause of his caption and detention should be sent along with him. The writ is wanting in a constitutional provision necessary to all writs; and it is equally insufficient in not setting forth the cause of the restraint of liberty.

The prisoner must, therefore, be discharged.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health 

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Special Emphasis Panel; NIAID, Clinical Trial Implementation Cooperative Agreement (U01 Clinical Trial Required) and NIAID Clinical Trial Planning Grants (R34 Clinical Trial Not Allowed).                    

*Date:*                         March 4, 2022.                    

*Time:*                         12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G58, Rockville, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Anuja Mathew, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G58, Rockville, MD 20852, 301-761-6911,                         *anuja.mathew@nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS).

 Dated: February 3, 2022.

Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2022-02661 Filed 2-8-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Ervin STEWARD, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-2121

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

OCTOBER 02, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

February 27, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 131844(32) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, SHERMAN TOWNSHIP, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 131844 

 COA: 269020 

St. Joseph CC: 03-001068-CZ

JOSEPH A. LEEMREIS and 

LORI M. LEEMREIS,

Defendants-Appellants. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s November 

15, 2006 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order 

was entered erroneously. 

KELLY, J., would grant reconsideration and, on reconsideration, would grant leave 

to appeal. 

d0220 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

February 27, 2007 

 Clerk
Blaise COOK, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3848

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 07, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
----

**CERTIFICATION          PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | 1. | The                    Report containing the financial statements 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 operation of                    Pomeroy IT                    Solutions, Inc. |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| August                    14, 2007 |                                                                                                 |
|------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                               |                                                                                                 |
|                               | /s/                    Kevin G. Gregory                                                              |
|                               | Kevin                    G. Gregory                                                                  |
|                               | President,                    Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial                    Officer |

----