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

<ARTICLE> 5 <LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF BACK BAY RESTAURANT GROUP, INC. FOR THE QUARTER ENDED
MARCH 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         967,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  252,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    657,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,980,000
<PP&E>                                      55,887,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              24,302,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              43,345,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,735,000
<BONDS>                                      6,495,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,434,032
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                43,345,000
<SALES>                                     21,896,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            21,896,000
<CGS>                                        6,095,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               19,706,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,166,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             165,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (141,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (52,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (89,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (89,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.03)
        

</TABLE>
Bernard SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-3796

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 12, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Omar T. ALSTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3209

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 17, 2018 Rehearing Denied May 16, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OR
RULE 15d-14(b)

OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Annual Report of Rentrak Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2011, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, William P. Livek, Director and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my 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.



|                                     |  |                     
|------------------------------------ |  | --------------------
|By:                                  |  | /s/ William P. Livek
|William P. Livek                    
|Director and Chief Executive Officer
|Rentrak Corporation                 
|June 10, 2011
July 30, 2015

Mr. Kevin Culbertson

1691 East Jefferson Way 312

Simi Valley, CA 93064

Dear Mr. Culbertson:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your May 12, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-1545), but 

we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply

with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, 

you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
Exhibit 10.28


 








 


AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


THIS AMENDMENT NO. 2 to the Executive Employment
Agreement (“Amendment”) is made effective as of the 1st day of July, 2018.


 


BETWEEN:


ZOMEDICA PHARMACEUTICALS CORP., a body corporate duly incorporated
pursuant to the laws of the Province of Alberta and having its registered office in the City of Calgary, in the Province of Alberta
(hereinafter referred to as the "Corporation")


 


- and -


 


GERALD SOLENSKY JR., an individual residing in the City
of Orchard Lake, Michigan USA (hereinafter referred to as the "Executive")


 


WHEREAS the Corporation and the Executive are
parties to an Employment Agreement dated as of December 1, 2016 (the “Employment Agreement”), between the parties and
pursuant to which Executive serves as the Company’s President and Chief Executive Officer; and


 


WHEREAS, the Company and Executive wish to further
amend the Employment Agreement in certain respects as provided in this Amendment.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing
and other consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which hereby are acknowledged, the Company and Executive hereby agree as
follows:


 


ARTICLE
1

DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATION


 


1.1                   
Definitions.




 


Terms not otherwise defined in this Amendment
shall have the meanings attributed to such terms in the Employment Agreement. References in the Employment Agreement and this Amendment
to this “Agreement" mean the Employment Agreement as amended by this Amendment and as further amended from time to time
as provided in the Employment Agreement.


 


ARTICLE
2

AMENDMENTS


 


2.1                   
The Employment Agreement is hereby amended in the following respects:


 


2.2                   
Section 5.1 is amended to increase the Executive’s Annual Base salary to $325,000usd effective July 1, 2018.






 






    


    -2-


    

ARTICLE
3

GENERAL


 


3.1                    
No other changes to the Executive Employment Agreement, except as expressly amended by this Amendment, all of the terms of the
Executive Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 






    


    -3-


    

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this
Agreement as of the date and year first above written.


 


	 	ZOMEDICA PHARMACEUTICALS CORP.
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	Per:	/s/ James Lebar
	 	 	James Lebar
	 	 	Director (& Compensation Committee
    Chairman)




 


 


 


 


 


	_______________	 	/s/ Gerald Solensky Jr.
	Witness	 	Gerald Solensky Jr.
	Name:
Exhibit 32

# CERTIFICATION
PURSUANTTO U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002

In connection
with the Quarterly Report of Protide Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the Registrant) on
Form 10-QSB for the period ended February 28, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 14, 2004, hereof (the Report), the undersigned officers
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, and

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

|                      |  | PROTIDE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.                                                  | 
|--------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | 
|                      | 
|Dated: April 13, 2004 |  | By: /S/ Milo R. PolovinaMilo R. PolovinaChairman of the Board, President & CEO | 

# CERTIFICATION
PURSUANTTO U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002

In connection
with the Quarterly Report of Protide Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the Registrant) on
Form 10-QSB for the period ended February 28, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 14, 2004, hereof (the Report), the undersigned officers
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, and

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

|                      |  | PROTIDE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.                            | 
|--------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------- | 
|                      | 
|Dated: April 13, 2004 |  | By: /S/ David E. TessDavid E. TessVice President Finance | 

16

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Adalberto RIVERA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-50262

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*754Submitted January 18, 2017 *

Filed January 24, 2017

Helen H. Hong, Colin M. McDonald, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Kristi A. Hughes, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, 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 **

Adalberto Rivera appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 12-month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Rivera claims that the district court procedurally erred by improperly basing its sentence on the seriousness of the underlying offense. We review for plain error, *see United States v. Valencia-Barragan,*608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude there is none. The record reflects that the district court based its decision on only proper 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors, including Rivera’s criminal history, his repeated breaches of the court’s trust, and the need to protect the public. *See United States v. Simtob,*485 F.3d 1058, 1062-63 (9th Cir. 2007).

Rivera next contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court placed undue weight on his prior violations of supervised release and probation. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Rivera’s sentence. *See Gall v. United States, 552*U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The court properly considered Rivera’s prior violations as part of his history and characteristics, as well as his criminal history. Moreover, the within-Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the section 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including the need to protect the public and afford adequate deterrence. *See Gall,*552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586; *United States v. Gutierrez-Sanchez,*587 F.3d 904, 908 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The weight to be given the various factors in a particular case is for the discretion of the district court.”).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Patrick BELZNER, a/k/a Patrick McCloskey, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6276

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 20, 2017

Decided: June 23, 2017

Patrick Belzner, Appellant Pro Se. Jefferson McClure Gray, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Patrick Belzner seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order defying relief on 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 certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing pf 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 Belzner 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*
Attached are emails between EPA and OMB regarding the 2015 GHGRP Proposed Amendments.
Exhibit 24.6





STATE OF ARKANSAS        §


COUNTY OF BENTON           §





POWER OF ATTORNEY





Know all men by these presents, that I, ROBERT CAMERON SMITH, a Director of AMERICA’S CAR-MART, INC., a Texas corporation, do constitute and appoint WILLIAM H. HENDERSON and JEFFREY A. WILLIAMS my true and lawful attorneys-in-fact, with full power of substitution, for me in any and all capacities, to sign, pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Annual Report on Form 10-K for AMERICA’S CAR-MART, INC. for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2011 and to file the same with the Securities and Exchange Commission and National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., together with all exhibits thereto and other documents in connection therewith, and to sign on my behalf and in my stead, in any and all capacities, any amendments to said Annual Report, incorporating such changes as said attorneys-in-fact deem appropriate, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact, or their substitute or substitutes may do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.





In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 15th day of June, 2011.








/s/ Robert Cameron Smith


ROBERT CAMERON SMITH











ACKNOWLEDGMENT





Before me this 15th day of June, 2011, came Robert Cameron Smith, personally known to me, who in my presence did sign and seal the above and foregoing Power of Attorney and acknowledged the same as his true act and deed.








/s/  Michelle R Walser


NOTARY PUBLIC
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Roberto AGUILAR, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-10402 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 11, 2017

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

Roberto Aguilar, Pro Se

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed'to represent Roberto Aguilar has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed briefs 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). Aguilar has filed a response as well as a motion to appoint new counsel. *74The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Aguilar’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claim without prejudice to collateral review. *See United States v. Isgar,*739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).

We have reviewed counsel’s briefs and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Aguilar’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 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. Because the appeal is frivolous, Aguilar’s motion to appoint new counsel is DENIED.

*

 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.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                                     For the Twelve Weeks Ended
                                                                              -----------------------------------------
                                                                              March 24, 1998            March 25, 1997
                                                                              --------------  -------------------------
                                                                               (in thousands, except per share amounts)
        Basic:
<S>                                                                               <C>                       <C>   
        Average weighted shares outstanding                                       41,165                    40,840

        Net Income                                                             $  14,711                  $ 18,204
                                                                               =========                  ========
        Per share amount                                                       $    0.36                  $   0.45
                                                                               =========                  ========

        Diluted:
        Average weighted shares outstanding                                       41,165                    40,840
        Net effect of dilutive stock options-based
          on the treasury stock method using the
         average market price of Company stock
          during the quarter                                                       1,070                       494
                                                                               ---------                  --------
        Total                                                                     42,235                    41,334
                                                                               =========                  ========

        Net Income                                                             $  14,711                  $ 18,204
                                                                               =========                  ========

        Per share amount                                                       $    0.35                  $   0.44
                                                                               =========                  ========
</TABLE>
Roderick A. JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4918

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 9, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-10193 Conference Calendar

WILLARD BRADDY, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus SAM L. PRATT, Respondent-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:01-CV-1234-P

-------------------- October 30, 2002 Before DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Willard Braddy, federal prisoner # 70460-198, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. Because Braddy seeks to challenge his conviction and 188-month sentence for possession with the intent to distribute methamphetamine, his petition should have been filed as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See Pack v. Yusuff , 218 F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir. 2000); Tolliver v. Dobre , 211 F.3d 876, 877-78 (5th Cir.No. 02-10193 -2- 2000) . Although Braddy can proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 if he demonstrates that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 relief is inadequate or ineffective, he fails to address this issue on appeal and has therefore abandoned the argument. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 21.1

Subsidiaries of the Registrant:

1.   StarBand Latin America (Holland) N.V., a Dutch corporation.

2.   Gilat to Home Florida, Inc. a Florida corporation.

3.   Gilat to Brazil Holdings Ltda, a Brazil corporation.

4.   Star Broadband Networks, Inc., a Delaware corporation.

5.   AutoNetworks, Inc., a Delaware corporation.

6.   LearningGate.com, a California corporation.

7.   ZapMe! Nova Scotia, a Nova Scotia corporation.




                                       1
Charles Edward PITTS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-4107

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 21, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.