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


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-02-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-02-1999
<CASH>                                       4,532,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               35,836,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,200,000
<INVENTORY>                                  9,411,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            50,174,000
<PP&E>                                      24,847,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              12,030,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              80,009,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       13,542,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       121,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  66,154,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                80,009,000
<SALES>                                     51,683,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            51,683,000
<CGS>                                       40,986,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               50,947,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               433,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                764,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   298,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            466,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   466,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.04
        


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1 SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, I, Steve Frickenstein, Chief Executive Officer of Breda
Telephone Corp., certify that to my knowledge (i) Breda Telephone Corp.s
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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 Breda Telephone Corp. Date: March
 31, 2009/s/ Steve
 FrickensteinSteve
 Frickenstein, Chief Executive Officer E-15
**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 Pacific Continental Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we,
      Hal M. Brown, Chief Executive Officer, and Michael A. Reynolds, Chief Financial
      Officer, 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
              Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------







/s/
                Hal M. Brown
            /s/
                Michael A. ReynoldsHal
                M. Brown
            Michael
                A. ReynoldsChief
                Executive Officer
            Chief
                Financial Officer
#### Teresa DOHERTY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PNC MORTGAGE, A DIVISION OF PNC BANK, NA, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-1350

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 17, 2017

Decided: August 21, 2017

Teresa Doherty, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Joseph Anzelmo, Thomas William McGee, III, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before KEENAN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Teresa Doherty appeals from the district court’s orders denying relief in her action filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692p (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons 'stated by the district court. *Doherty v. PNC Mortgage,*No. 0:14-cv-04013-TLW (D.S.C. Aug. 21, 2015; filed Mar. 1, 2017 & entered Mar. 2, 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*
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-21-00009-CR

___________________________

On Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 3

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1599236D

Before Womack, Wallach, and Walker, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

TAMIKA FAYE GRANT, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

Appellant has moved to dismiss her appeal. Because we have not yet decided 

this case, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a), 

43.2(f).

Per Curiam

Do Not Publish

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: February 4, 2021
#### Napoleon Junior RANKIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James MCRAE, Assistant Superintendent, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6513

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 27, 2017

Decided: August 1, 2017

Napoleon J. Rankin, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Napoleon J. Rankin seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § -2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012); *Reid v. Angelone,*369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Rankin 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 *182materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
James LITTLEJOHN, et al., Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, etc., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1079

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

OCTOBER 12, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.

Denied.
EXHIBIT 99.1

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 of Stealth MediaLabs, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ending October 31, 2002 as
filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report). I, Howard E. Leventhal, Chief Executive Officer and
principal financial officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 USC §
1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to the best of my knowledge and belief:

| | (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/ Howard E. Leventhal
Howard E. Leventhal, Chief Executive Officer
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: March 7, 2003
EX PARTE Jeremy Lawrence BAKER

1151051 (CR-15-0359)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

March 10, 2017

Cert. denied.
#### Houch vs. Lynch.

The' case of *MiUer vs. Bailiff,*14 *Arle.*419, and other'decisions, that this court Will interfere with the finding of a jury upon the Weight of evidence, approved.

*Appeal from Crawford Circuit Court.*

The Hon, Felix J, Batson, Circuit Judge.

S. F. ClAek, for the appellant.

Mr. Justice Hanly

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This was an action which originated before a justice of the peace of Crawford county, founded on a detailed account for balance due, for goods, wares and merchandize, amounting to $64 51. On submission of the cause to the justice, there was a finding and judgment for the amount of the balance of the account sued for: from which, the appellant took an appeal to the Circuit Court of *479Crawford county. The cause coming on for trial in that court,, a jury was called, who, upon hearing all the evidence adduced on both sides, returned a verdict in favor of the appellee for the sum of $64 51, the amount of the judgment recovered before the justice; upon which verdict,-the court below rendered judgment. The appellant moved the court for a new trial, which being overruled, he excepted; setting out all the evidence adduced, and appealed to this court.

We will not state the evidence, for the reason' that there were no instructions given or refused by the court, and the decision of the jury was upon the weight of evidence, which, in our judgment, was clearly in favor of the verdict.

A judgment may be reversed upon a motion for a new trial overruled, when there is a want of evidence of some material matter necessary to uphold the verdict; but because a verdict may appear to be against evidence, this court will not assume the power of dictating to juries, that they must believe evidence, against ¿heir own convictions of its truth. See *Miller vs. Ratliff,*14 *Ark. Rep.*419, and the several decisions made at the present term on this point.

The judgment of the Circuit Court of Crawford county, is, therefore, affirmed with costs.

Absent, Mr. Justice Soorr.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6009 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6009

 To require the Director of the Bureau of Land Management to withdraw 
the proposed rule relating to fluid mineral leases and leasing process, 
                        and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 20, 2023

  Ms. Boebert (for herself, Ms. Hageman, Mr. Stauber, Mr. Gosar, Mr. 
   Lamborn, Mr. McClintock, Mr. Norman, Mrs. Miller of Illinois, Mr. 
    Higgins of Louisiana, Mr. Nehls, and Mr. Ogles) introduced the 
                             following bill

                            October 25, 2023

             Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require the Director of the Bureau of Land Management to withdraw 
the proposed rule relating to fluid mineral leases and leasing process, 
                        and for other purposes.

    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 ``Restoring American Energy Dominance 
Act''.

SEC. 2. WITHDRAWAL OF BLM PROPOSED RULE.

    The Director of the Bureau of Land Management--
            (1) shall withdraw the proposed rule of the Bureau of Land 
        Management entitled ``Fluid Mineral Leases and Leasing 
        Process'' (88 Fed. Reg. 47562 (July 24, 2023)); and
            (2) may not take any action to finalize, implement, or 
        enforce the proposed rule described in paragraph (1) or any 
        substantially similar rule.
                                 <all>
```
#### Jimmy REID, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gail MCCUBBINS, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-6373

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 23, 2017

Decided: May 26, 2017

Jimmy Reid, Appellant Pro Se.

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jimmy Reid appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Reid v. McCubbins,*No. 1:17-cv-00060-TDS-LPA (M.D.N.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*
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 of
Salon Media Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended March
31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard Gingras, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 (1)           The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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/ Richard
Gingras


December
      2, 2009
            Richard
      Gingras


Chief
Executive Officer
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 16

- 00044

- CV

Rayford F. Perry

v.

Steven Swift, Brad Livingston, Jessi

Keith, and Goldie Jacques §

§

§

§ From the 89th District Court

of Wichita County (181,533

- C)

June 9, 2016

Opinion by Justice Walker



### JUDGME NT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By

_ /s/ Sue Walker

_____

_______________ Justice Sue Walker
#### HOAI THANH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HIEN T. NGO, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-1110

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 27, 2017

Decided: August 4, 2017

Laurence A. Elgin, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Joseph D. Gallagher, GILL SIPPEL & GALLAGHER, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before AGEE, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Hoai Thanh appeals from the district court’s orders: (1) denying relief on his second amended complaint in which he asserted claims for, inter alia, defamation and false light invasion of privacy, and (2) denying his post-judgment motions for reconsideration and to file a third amended complaint. We have reviewed the record included on appeal, as well as the parties’ briefs, and have found no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Hoai Thanh v. Hie Ngo,*No. 8:14-cv-00448-PJM, 2016 WL 3958584, 2015 WL 2227923 (D. Md. July 22, 2016; May 8, 2015). 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*
Exhibit 32.1


                    STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
             CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350

         In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period
ended September 30, 2006 (the "Form 10-Q") 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. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to our knowledge:

         (a) the Form 10-Q 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 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.



         By:      /s/Jacky K. Anderson                 Date:11/14/06
            ------------------------------------            --------
                  Jacky K. Anderson
                  Chief Executive Officer



         By:      /s/Blake M. Edwards                   Date:11/14/06
            ------------------------------------             --------
                  Blake M. Edwards
                  Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. 1350

(SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Valassis Communications, Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify, to the best of his knowledge and belief that:

(1) The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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



|                    |  |                        
|------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Dated: May 10, 2007 |  | /s/ Robert L. Recchia  
|                    |  | Robert L. Recchia      
|                    |  | Chief Financial Officer
Joseph Patrick MANNING, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D17-2702

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed April 25, 2018. Rehearing Denied May 31, 2018

Joseph Patrick Manning, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SUAREZ, SALTER, and FERNANDEZ, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *Smiley v. State*, 966 So.2d 330 (Fla. 2007).
#### Barkeloo et al. vs. Miller.

Mr. Justice Scott:

This was a *sci. fa.*to revive a judgment on a forthcoming bond. The case is the counterpart of that of *Miller vs. Barke-loo,*just decided, where the judgment that was revived in this case was held to have been annulled.

The judgment in this case must, therefore, be reversed.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Adriene Sibley v. Port Freeport

Appellate case number: 01

- 22

- 00860

- CV

Trial court case number: CI61616

Trial court: Co u n ty C our t at Law No

. 3 and Probate C our t o f Brazoria Co unty

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 fo r Ext ension

of Time to File Bri ef. 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