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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS FILED AS
PART OF THE APACHE MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC. FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD
ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           5,044
<SECURITIES>                                     1,048
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,509
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,138
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,072
<PP&E>                                           3,659
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,106
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  10,749
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,618
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            74
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,972
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    10,749
<SALES>                                          2,972
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,972
<CGS>                                              927
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      927
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,761
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  65
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    349
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                349
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       349
<EPS-BASIC>                                      $0.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $0.05


</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

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.

_________________________________________ Clerk March 4, 2013

t0225 

# Order

March 4, 2013

146473 & (54)

ABERDEEN OF BRIGHTON, L.L.C.,

Petitioner

- Appellee,

v SC: 146473

COA: 301826

MI Tax Tribunal: 00

- 345517

CITY OF BRIGHTON,

Respondent

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED.

The application for leave to appeal the October 16, 2012 judgment of the Court of

Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the

questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

V IVIANO , J., not participating.
Exhibit 32.2

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 of Mortons Restaurant Group, Inc. (Mortons) on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended April 4, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ronald M. DiNella, the Chief Financial Officer of Mortons, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(i) The Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(ii) The information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Mortons.

Date: May 7, 2010





|                                         
|-----------------------------------------
|/s/ RONALD M. DINELLA                    
|Ronald M. DiNella
Chief Financial Officer
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Adriene Sibley v. Port Freeport

Appellate case number: 01-22-00860-CV

Trial court case number: CI61616

Trial court: County Court at Law No. 3 and Probate Court of Brazoria County

Appellant Adriene Sibley filed a notice of appeal challenging the October 24, 2022 

judgment signed by the trial court. On January 31, 2023, Appellant filed a Motion for Extension 

of Time to File Brief. Because briefing deadlines have yet to be set, the motion is denied as 

premature.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Veronica Rivas-Molloy

Acting individually 

Date: February 7, 2023
Eddie Joe LEWIS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D17-3852

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 6, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

DENIED.
SANTA ROSA PROFESSIONAL EDUCATORS, Appellant, v. Carol POTEREK, Melanie Peters, and Catherine Wilson, Appellees.

No. 1D17-1820

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 30, 2018

Archibald J. Thomas, III, of the Law Offices of Archibald J. Thomas, III, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellant.

Peter Caldwell and Maria Kazouris of the Florida Education Association, Tallahassee, for Appellees.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Roberts, Kelsey, and M.K. Thomas, JJ., concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pedro MORENO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-8119

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Filed January 31, 2017

Jason M. Conder, Office of the United States Attorney, District of Wyoming, Lander, WY, David A. Kubichek, Esq.; Office of the United States Attorney, District of Wyoming, Casper, WY, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Pedro Moreno, Pro Se

Before LUCERO, BALDOCK, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Carlos F. Lucero Circuit Judge

Pedro Moreno, appearing pro se, appeals a district court order dismissing his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for lack of jurisdiction. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

In April 2003, Moreno was sentenced to 240 months’ imprisonment pursuant to a plea agreement, Moreno subsequently filed a § 3582(c)(2) motion requesting a sentence reduction based on an amendment to the Guidelines. The district court denied *467the motion, concluding that Moreno was not entitled to a reduction because his sentence was imposed based on a plea agreement, not the Guidelines. On appeal, this court affirmed the district court’s conclusion, but vacated the order and remanded with directions to dismiss Moreno’s motion for lack of jurisdiction. United States v. Moreno, 658 Fed.Appx. 913 (10th Cir. 2016) (unpublished). The district court subsequently did so, and it is from that order that Moreno now appeals. ..

As explained in this court’s prior decision, because Moreno was not sentenced pursuant to the Guidelines, the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider his motion under the explicit terms of § 3582(c)(2). Moreno, 658 Fed.Appx. at 917. On remand, the district court was required to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, consistent with this court’s instruction. See Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation v. Utah, 114 F.3d 1513, 1520-21 (10th Cir. 1997) (“[T]he ‘mandate rule[ ]’ provides that a district court must comply strictly with the mandate rendered by the reviewing court.” (quotation omitted)). To the extent Moreno argues that this court’s prior order was incorrectly decided, we may not consider his position. United States v. West, 646 F.3d 745, 748 (10th Cir. 2011) (“The law of the case doctrine precludes relitigation of a ruling of law in a case once it has been decided.”).

AFFIRMED.

*

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Maynor MURILLO-ARGUETA, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

Case No. 5D18-921

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed April 6, 2018

Tanya M. Dugree, Tampa, for Petitioner.

No Appearance for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for belated appeal is granted. A copy of this opinion shall be filed with the trial court and be treated as the notice of appeal from the December 20, 2017 order denying Petitioner's amended motion for post-conviction relief, filed in Case Numbers 2012-3986-CF and 2013-1025-CF, in the Fifth Judicial Circuit Court in and for Marion County, Florida. *See* Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(c)(6)(D).

PETITION GRANTED.

PALMER, WALLIS, and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of NaviSite, Inc.
(the "Company") for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, Arthur P. Becker, Chief Executive Officer and President of the
Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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.

Date: October 22, 2003                     By: /s/ Arthur P. Becker
                                               --------------------
                                           Arthur P. Becker
                                           Chief Executive Officer and President
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6132 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6132

   To require the Consumer Product Safety Commission to promulgate a 
mandatory consumer product safety standard with respect to retractable 
                                awnings.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            November 1, 2023

 Mr. Balderson (for himself and Ms. Castor of Florida) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                                Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To require the Consumer Product Safety Commission to promulgate a 
mandatory consumer product safety standard with respect to retractable 
                                awnings.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Awning Safety Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY STANDARD FOR RETRACTABLE AWNINGS.

    (a) Consumer Product Safety Standard Required.--Not later than 18 
months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Consumer 
Product Safety Commission shall promulgate, under section 553 of title 
5, United States Code, a final consumer product safety standard for 
fixed and freestanding retractable awnings within the jurisdiction of 
the Commission to protect against the risk of death or serious injury 
related to the hazards associated with such awnings, including the risk 
of death or serious injury related to the awning unexpectedly opening 
and striking a person while removing the bungee tie-downs for the cover 
of the awning.
    (b) CPSC Determination of Scope.--The Consumer Product Safety 
Commission shall specify the types of retractable awning devices within 
the jurisdiction of the Commission that are within the scope of 
subsection (a) as part of a standard promulgated under this section, as 
reasonably necessary to protect against hazards associated with 
retractable awnings.
    (c) Treatment of Standard.--A consumer product safety standard 
promulgated under subsection (a) shall be treated as a consumer product 
safety rule promulgated under sections 7 and 9 of the Consumer Product 
Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2056 and 2058).
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.2


INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT ON FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULE

The Board of Directors and Stockholders
Engage, Inc.:

     Under the date of September 24, 2001, except for Note 22, which is as of
October 4, 2001, we reported on the consolidated balance sheets of Engage, Inc.
and subsidiaries as of July 31, 2000 and 2001, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, changes in stockholders' equity, and cash flows for
each of the years in the three-year period ended July 31, 2001, which are
included in the Form 10-K for the year ended July 31, 2001. In connection with
our audits of the aforementioned consolidated financial statements, we also
audited the related consolidated financial statement schedule of Valuation and
Qualifying Accounts in the Form 10-K. This financial statement schedule is the
responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an
opinion on this financial statement schedule based on our audits. In our
opinion, such financial statement schedule, when considered in relation to the
basic consolidated financial statements taken as a whole, presents fairly, in
all material respects, the information set forth therein.



Boston, Massachusetts
September 24, 2001
Marcus A. UPSHAW, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3717

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed June 22, 2018

Marcus A. Upshaw, Jasper, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Robin A. Compton, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Marcus Upshaw appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). The State properly concedes that one of the issues raised by Upshaw has merit.

In June 2015, Upshaw entered a nolo contendere plea on Count I in case number 2014-CF-002517 to felony petit theft, a third-degree felony. Upshaw was sentenced to six years in prison on that count, the lowest permissible sentence as reflected on his scoresheet. However, as the State acknowledges, the scoresheet was erroneous because it improperly used Upshaw's 2010 aggravated assault with a deadly weapon conviction as the primary offense, rather than as a prior offense. Because a properly calculated scoresheet would yield a lowest permissible sentence on this charge of less than five years, the trial court was precluded from imposing a sentence greater than the five-year statutory maximum. Accordingly, on remand, *1021the trial court is directed to vacate the sentence imposed on Upshaw's felony petit theft conviction in case number 2014-CF-002517 and to resentence him. We find the other issues raised by Upshaw to be without merit.

AFFIRMED, in part; REVERSED, in part; and REMANDED.

COHEN, C.J. and ORFINGER and EVANDER, JJ., concur.
IIB 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6116 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 5, 2024 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 14280 South Military Trail in Delray Beach, 

Florida, as the ‘‘Benjamin Berell Ferencz Post Office 

Building’’. 

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


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 6116 RFS

1 SECTION 1. BENJAMIN BERELL FERENCZ POST OFFICE 

2 BUILDING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 14280 South Military Trail in 

5 Delray Beach, Florida, shall be known and designated as 

6 the ‘‘Benjamin Berell Ferencz Post Office Building’’. 

7 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg8 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

9 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

10 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Benjamin Berell 

11 Ferencz Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 4, 

2024. 

Attest: KEVIN F. MCCUMBER, 

Clerk. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.2 Section 906 CFO Certification

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

In connection with the filing of this report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
July 5, 2005 (the "Report") by Pomeroy IT Solutions, Inc., the undersigned
hereby certifies 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 Pomeroy IT Solutions, Inc.


     August 15, 2005               /s/ Michael E. Rohrkemper
                                   ----------------------------
                                   Michael E. Rohrkemper
                                   Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Pomeroy IT Solutions, Inc. and will be retained by Pomeroy IT
Solutions, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 10.2

                  AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


         This AMENDMENT NO. 1 made as of the 18th day of August, 2000, to
the Employment Agreement (the "Agreement") made as of the 20th day of
November, 1998, between UNITED RETAIL GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation,
with principal offices at 365 West Passaic Street, Rochelle Park, New
Jersey 07662-6563 and KENNETH P. CARROLL, residing at 140 Prospect Avenue,
Apartment 11J, Hackensack, New Jersey 07601.

         WHEREAS, capitalized terms used herein and defined in the
Agreement shall have the same meaning as in the Agreement;

         WHEREAS, the Executive is an attorney admitted to practice before
the courts of the State of New York and the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York;

         WHEREAS, the Executive has been employed by the Company as its
Senior Vice President - General Counsel to provide, among other things,
advice on the laws of the State of New York and the federal laws of the
United States and to supervise the representation before courts and
legislative and administrative bodies of the Company and its subsidiaries;

         WHEREAS, the Company desires to continue the professional services
of the Executive, and the Executive desires to continue to provide such
services to the Company, on the terms set forth in the Agreement; and

         WHEREAS, the provisions of this Amendment were recommended by the
Compensation Committee of the Company's Board of Directors on August 17,
2000 and approved by the Company's Board of Directors on August 18, 2000.

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and
obligations hereinafter set forth, the parties hereto, intending to be
legally bound, hereby agree as follows:

1.  Section 1(s) of the Agreement is amended to read in its entirety as
    follows:

                  "(s) Term of Employment shall mean the period of time
                  commencing on November 20, 1998 and ending on July 30,
                  2005 or such later date as may be mutually agreed upon by
                  the Board of Directors and the Executive."

2.  All the provisions of the Agreement other than Section 1(s) shall
    remain in force unchanged.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this
Amendment in Rochelle Park, New Jersey, in duplicate originals on August
21, 2000.


                                     UNITED RETAIL GROUP, INC.


                                     By: /s/ Raphael Benaroya
                                        --------------------------------
                                     Name:  Raphael Benaroya
                                     Title: Chairman of the Board

                                          /s/ Kenneth P. Carroll
                                          ------------------------------
                                          Kenneth P. Carroll

Employment agreement
KPC:jw
#### Yoel Reyes PEREZ, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 17-1126

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: September 21, 2017

Decided: September 26, 2017

Sean R.. Hanover, HANOVER LAW, PC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readier, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Terri J. Scadron, Assistant Director, Christina P. Greer, Gregory D. Mack, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

*244Before DUNCAN, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Yoel Reyes Perez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of his applications for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture.

On appeal, Reyes Perez argues that the Board erred in failing to overturn the immigration judge’s finding that he failed to establish a cognizable particular social group. The Board presumed, however, for purposes of its analysis, that Reyes Perez was able to meet this nexus requirement. The Board proceeded to uphold the immigration judge’s denial of withholding of removal on the ground that Reyes Perez failed to establish harm rising to the level of past persecution or establish a clear probability of future persecution if returned to Mexico. Because Reyes Perez fails to raise any arguments in his informal brief that meaningfully challenge the basis for the Board’s decision, we find that he has failed to preserve any issues for review. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A) (“[T]he argument ... must contain ... appellant’s contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant relies.”); *Edwards v. City of Goldsboro,*178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 1999) (“Failure to comply with the specific dictates of [Rule 28] with respect to a particular claim triggers abandonment of that claim on appeal.”).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. *In re Reyes Perez*(B.I.A. Jan. 17, 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.

*PETITION DENIED*