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
MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q
FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 2000.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           4,360
<SECURITIES>                                       798
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,384
<ALLOWANCES>                                       495
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,506
<PP&E>                                           3,909
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,332
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  10,416
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,799
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            74
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,396
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    10,416
<SALES>                                          1,583
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,583
<CGS>                                              625
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      625
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,803
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   7
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (775)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (775)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (775)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    ($0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  ($0.10)


</TABLE>
UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STRI CT C OU RT F O R T H E D IS T R IC T O F C O LU M B IA

_______________________________________) DAL E SCOTT HEI

NEMAN, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Ci vi l A cti onNo. 09 -05 82 (P L F) ) L I ND A SA ND ERS , ) ) Re sp on de nt. ) _______________________________________)

ORDER F or the re a so ns state d in

the a c c omp anyingMe mor and um O pin ion , it

is ORDERED that this case is DI SMI SSED for lack of jurisdiction This is a fina l appea lable Or der. See Rul e 4( a ), F e d. R. A pp . P. SO ORDERED. /s/________________________ PAULL . FRI EDMAN DATE: Apr il 2, 2009 United States District J udg e
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 quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the
Quarter  Ended  April  5, 2007 (the "Report") by Pomeroy IT Solutions, Inc., the
undersigned  hereby  certifies  that:

     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.


     May 15, 2007             /s/ Kevin G. Gregory
                              --------------------
                              Kevin G. Gregory
                              Senior Vice President and 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 11

                               GALEY & LORD, INC.
                       STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF
                               PER SHARE EARNINGS

Computation of Average Shares Outstanding (In Thousands):
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                   Three Months Ended                    Nine Months Ended
                                                          --------------------------------      ---------------------------------
                                                          June 27, 1998      June 28, 1997      June 27, 1998       June 28, 1997
                                                          -------------      -------------      -------------       -------------
<S>                                                          <C>                <C>                <C>                <C>   
Basic Average Common Shares Outstanding .........            11,781             11,625             11,710             11,600

Add Dilutive Options ............................               587                378                506                366
                                                             ------             ------             ------             ------
Diluted Average Shares ..........................            12,368             12,003             12,216             11,966

</TABLE>
#### WEIFEN SUN, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 14-72474

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted August 9, 2017 *

Filed August 15, 2017

Weifen Sun, Pro Se

Lauren Fascett, Kristen Giuffreda Chapman, Trial Attorney, OIL, Anthony Cardozo Payne, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

*290Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Weifen Sun, native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID Act. *Shrestha v. Holder,*590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based Sun’s misrepresentations regarding her relationship with Wang. *See id.*at 1048; *Singh v. Holder,*643 F.3d 1178, 1181 (9th Cir. 2011) (an “applicant who lies to immigration authorities casts doubt on his credibility and the rest of his story”); *Garcia v. Holder,*749 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2014) (evidence was insufficient to rehabilitate testimony or support independent claim for relief). In the absence of credible testimony, in this case,' Sun’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. *See Farah v. Ashcroft,*348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Sun’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same testimony the agency found not credible, and Sun does not point to any evidence that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not she would be tortured if returned to China. *See id.*at 1156-57.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              FEB-29-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   NOV-30-1999
<CASH>                                         2,390
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  15,335
<ALLOWANCES>                                   1,126
<INVENTORY>                                    54,695
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         17,091
<DEPRECIATION>                                 8,371
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 134,771
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       24,058
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   134,771
<SALES>                                        11,966
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               122,599
<CGS>                                          7,668
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  114,202
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             3,634
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                4,779
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1,950
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            2,829
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   2,829
<EPS-BASIC>                                  .59
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .58



</TABLE>
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 2 0 2 3

- 2012

_____________________________
T ONY D. G OODWIN ,
Petitioner
,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Respondent

.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Mandamus

— Original Jurisdiction

.

February 7, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
The c ourt dismisses as moot the petition for writ of mandamus asking us to compel the trial court to rule on two pending motions. The trial court has given the petitioner a ruling on the motions.

R OWE , M.K. T HOMAS , and T ANENBAUM , JJ., concur.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Tony D. Goodwin
, pro se, P etitioner

. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Trisha Meggs Pate, Bureau Chief, Tallahassee
, for Respondent

.
Joseph YOSSIFON, Appellant, v. Alison Lynch YOSSIFON, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-1395

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 24, 2018

Agustin R. Benitez, of Benitez Law Group, P.L., Orlando, for Appellant.

Stephanie Vollrath, of Vollrath Law P.A., Oviedo, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ORFINGER, EVANDER and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
#### Slater v. Slater.

Divorce: adultery and cruelty: insufficient evidence.

*Appeal from Cass Circuit Court.*

Wednesday, December 7, 1887.

Action for a divorce. Judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiff appeals.

*A. S. Churchill*and *Willard <& Fletcher,*for appellant.

*L. L. DeLmo,*for appellee.

Seevers, J.

The plaintiff and defendant were married in November, 1883. She was 26 or 27 years old and he was 53 or 54. They lived together until August, 1884, when the plaintiff left the defendant, and, in November following, this action was commenced. The grounds on which the relief is asked are adultery and inhuman treatment endangering the life of plaintiff. The evidence is exceedingly voluminous, there being about 200 printed pages which have been carefully read, together with the arguments of counsel. It is obvious it would require much space and time to set out this evidence and sufficiently comment thereon to make ourselves understood. We do not believe this is necessary or proper, for several reasons, one of which is that much of the evidence is unfit for publication. We may say generally, also, that much of the evidence is irreconcilable, nor can it be said that several of the witnesses were simply mistaken, but the conviction is forced upon us that more than one witness has sworn falsely. Take the transactions said to have occurred in the barn between the plaintiff and defendant as an example. One of them is testified to by the defendant and two other witnesses. Now these persons have sworn falsely or the plaintiff has, and yet the general reputation of neither is impeached. This is true as to the other trans*765action. It is claimed for the plaintiff that she has been corroborated by certain witnesses introduced by her. We must not be understood as intimating that these witnesses have sworn falsely, nor do' we desire to be understood as saying that the plaintiff or defendant, or any other particular witness has so testified, but only that some one has.

It would not be any benefit to the profession or parties to set out the evidence and comment thereon. The only effect this would have would be to give greater publicity to this unfortunate controversy. Therefore, after careful consideration, we deem it best and sufficient to say that, in our opinion, the plaintiff has failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that she is entitled to a divorce. Therefore the judgment of the circuit court is ■ Affirmed.
[EXHIBIT 32.2]


   CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL
            OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                   AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
           SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


   I,  Garth Jensen, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as  adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act  of
2002,  that the Annual Report of North American Liability  Group,
Inc. on Form 10-KSB/A for the annual period ended December 31, 2005
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the   Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934  and  that  information
contained  in  such Form 10-KSB/A fairly presents in  all  material
respects  the  financial condition and results of  operations  of
BioChem Solutions, Inc.



                                 By: /s/ Garth Jensen
                                 ---------------------------------
                                 Name:  Garth Jensen
                                 Title:  Chief Financial Officer



<PAGE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ignacio RODRIGUEZ-CEPEDA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-41243 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 21, 2017

Andrew R. Gould, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, H. Michael Sokolow, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Ignacio Rodriguez-Cepeda appeals his sentence for illegal reentry after deportation. He contends that the district court erred in increasing his offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) based on his *182Texas convictions of burglary of a habitation under Texas Penal Code § 30.02. Rodriguez-Cepeda urges, under *Mathis v. United States,*— U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 2243, 195 L.Ed.2d 604 (2016), that the burglary statute is not divisible and that not every violation of § 30.02(a) qualifies as a crime of violence (“COV”) under § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii). He also contends that the state-court documents failed to show under which subsection of § 30.02 he was convicted for his 2002 conviction of burglary of a habitation, so the conviction does not qualify as a COV even under the modified categorical approach.

The government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance, asserting that Rodriguez-Cepeda’s arguments are foreclosed by *United States v. Uribe,*838 F.3d 667 (5th Cir. 2016), *cert. denied,*— U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 1359, 197 L.Ed.2d 542 (2017). In the alternative, the government requests an extension of time in which to file a brief on the merits.

The government is correct that *Uribe, id.*at 669-71, forecloses Rodriguez-Cepe-da’s reliance on *Mathis,*Accordingly, the motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Clr, R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *182published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
NO. 12-22-00059-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

THOMAS SMART, 

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 114TH 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Appellant, Thomas Smart, filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. The motion is signed by 

Appellant and his counsel. No decision has been delivered in this appeal. Accordingly, 

Appellant’s motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.2(a).

Opinion delivered April 6, 2022.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

APRIL 6, 2022

NO. 12-22-00059-CR

THOMAS SMART,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 114th District Court

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 114-1258-21)

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the motion of the Appellant to dismiss 

the appeal herein, and the same being considered, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and 

DECREED by this Court that the motion to dismiss be granted and the appeal be dismissed, and 

that the decision be certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
PECHANGA INDIAN RESERVATION 

Temecula Band of Luisefto Mission Indians 

Post Office Box 1477· Temecula. CA 92593 

Telephone (951) 770-6000 Fax (951) 695-1778 

TRIBAL COUNCIL EXECUTIVE ORDER 

OF THE 

PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO MISSION INDIANS 

PECHANGA INDIAN RESERVATION 

EXECUTIVE ORDER #140812-4.5 

Tribal Chairman: 

Mark Macarro 

Council Members: 

Catalina R Chacon 

Corrina R Garbani Sanchez 

Andrew Masiel. Sr. 

Robert "RJ." Munoa 

Russell "Butch" Murphy 

Benjamin "Ben" Vasquez 

Tribal Secretary: 

Louise Burke 

. Tribal Treasurer: 

Christina McMenamin 

PURPOSE: to apply for Treatment in the Same Manner As A State ("T AS") Status for 

Clean Air Act Sections 110 and 175A for the purpose of submitting and 

implementing a maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard 

WHEREAS: The Temecula Band of Luiseno Mission Indians, sometimes referred to as the 

Pechanga Band of Mission Indians, federally recognized as the Pechanga Band of 

Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Indian Reservation (hereafter, "the 

Band") is a sovereign, federally recognized Indian tribe; and 

WHEREAS: The Pechanga General Membership (hereafter, "General Membership") is the 

governing body of the Pechanga Indian Reservation; and 

WHEREAS: The Pechanga Tribal Council is the entity authorized pursuant to the Constitution 

and Bylaws of the Band to carry out executive functions oftribal government; and 

WHEREAS: The Pechanga Tribal Council has determined that TAS status under the sections 

named above of the federal Clean Air Act would provide substantive and 

procedural advantages to the Band in its ongoing pursuit of clean air and the 

highest standards of environmental protection for the Pechanga Indian 

Reservation; and 

WHEREAS: The Band asserts and affirms its sovereign status and powers, and the federal 

government's trust obligations through the exercise of government-to-government 

relations, as allowed under applicable law. 
THEREFORE BE IT NOW RESOLVED THAT: The Pechanga Band shall apply for and 

accept TAS status for Clean Air Act Sections 11 0 and 175A for the purpose of submitting and 

implementing a maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. 

CERTIFICATION 

We, the undersigned, the duly elected officers of the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians, 

do hereby certify that the foregoing Executive Order was adopted by the Pechanga Tribal 

Council at a duly called Tribal Council meeting conducted on August 12,2014, by a vote of 1. 

for, ~ opposed, and _1_ abstaining, and said Executive Order has not been rescinded or 

amended in any way. 

Mark Macarro, Tribal Chairm 

Andrew Masiel Sr., Councilman 

BenjFmin Vasquez, C~ 

PECHANGA INDIAN RESERVATION 

Temecula Band oj Luisefto Mission Indians
George Nelson JOHNSTON v. Michelle Ladnier JOHNSTON

2150872

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

June 30, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
##### 



1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Chromcraft Revington, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
 Date: August 13, 2007
    /s/Frank T. KaneFrank T. KaneSr. Vice President-Finance and Chief
Financial Officer