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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           3,737
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,455
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      5,589
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                11,781
<PP&E>                                          24,812
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,468
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  33,125
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           50,879
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       155,424
<OTHER-SE>                                   (173,178)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    33,125
<SALES>                                         29,065
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                29,065
<CGS>                                           14,497
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   91,700
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,108
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (64,743)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (65,543)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (65,543)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (.032)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.032)


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO **

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | 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 result of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:    | /s/                Mark R. Newburg                                                                                          |   | Dated: | November                14, 2006 |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|----------------------------------|
|   | Mark                R. Newburg                                                                                              |   |   |                             |
| Title: | President,                Chief Executive Officer                and Treasurer (Principal                Executive Officer) |   |   |                             |
|   |                                                                                                                        |   |   |                             |
| By:    | /s/                Arnaldo F. Galassi                                                                                       |   | Dated: | November                14, 2006 |
|   | Arnaldo                F. Galassi                                                                                           |   |   |                             |
| Title: | Chief                Financial Officer and Secretary (Principal Financial                Officer)                           |   |   |                             |

----
STATE of Louisiana v. Glynn HAWKINS and Alex Lewis

NO. 2017-KO-1183

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 18, 2018

Denied.
**EXHIBIT
      32**





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 Tasker Capital Corp. (the "Company") on
      Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard
      Falcone, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Stathis Kouninis, Chief
      Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
      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 result of operations of the Company as of and for
      the periods presented in the Report.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





Date: March
              31, 2006
            By:
            /s/ Richard
              FalconeRichard
              FalconeChief
              Executive Officer


Date: March
                31, 2006
              By:
              /s/
                Stathis KouninisStathis
                KouninisChief
                Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT -31.3**

 

MOSSIMO, INC.

 

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

 

I, VickenFestekjian, Chief Financial Officer of the registrant, certify that:

 

1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Mossimo, Inc.;

 

2.     Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.

 

3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.     The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant andhave:

 

(a)          Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant is made known to usby others, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;

 

(b)         Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c)          Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonable likely to affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.     The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal controls over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

(a)          All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b)         Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.

 
| /s/ VICKEN FESTEKJIAN   |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Vicken Festekjian       |
| Chief Financial Officer |
| November 14, 2005  |

 

----
#### IN RE: Helen KATAKIS, Appellant

2016-1695

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

March 20, 2017

Henry Joseph Cittone, Cittone *&*Chinta LLP, New York, NY, and Gregory Dolin, University of Baltimore School of Law, Baltimore, MD, argued for appellant.

Mary Beth Walker, Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for appellee Michelle K. Lee. Also represented by Nathan K. Kelley, Thomas W. Karuse, Christina Hieber.

(Newman, Clevenger, and Taranto, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
Kenneth Winston SANDERS v. STATE

CR-16-0136

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 21, 2017

Reh. denied.
#### Thomas F. KASTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-1451

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: September 26, 2017

Decided: September 28, 2017

Thomas F. Kaston, Appellant Pro Se. Leah Frances Golshani, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Thomas F. Kaston seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and affirming the Commissioner’s decision denying Kaston’s application for disability benefits. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.*

When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than 60 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” *Bowles v. Russell,*551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).

*257The district court’s order was entered on the docket on January 23, 2017. The notice of appeal was filed on March 27, 2017. Because Kaston failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we 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*

*

 Although we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, we note that Kaston waived appellate review of the district court's order by failing to file timely specific objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation despite being warned of the consequences. *See Wright v. Collins,*766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); *Thomas v. Arn,*474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985).
Donielle SIMPSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-1473

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed February 6, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

In the Interest of C.G.B. and H.F.B., 

Children

No. 06-19-00042-CV

Appeal from the 115th District Court of 

Upshur County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 185-18). 

Memorandum Opinion delivered by Chief 

Justice Morriss, Justice Burgess and Justice 

Stevens participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We further order that the appellants pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED OCTOBER 24, 2019

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Travis Lamont FOOTE, a/k/a Cash, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-6305

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 20, 2017

Decided: May 1, 2017

Travis Lamont Foote, Appellant Pro Se.

Judson T. Mihok, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, KEENAN, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Travis Lamont Foote seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying 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 ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Foote 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*

*

 We remanded this case to the district court for the limited purpose of determining whether Foote demonstrated excusable neglect or good cause warranting an extension of the 60-day appeal period. The district court found that an extension was warranted, and the case is now back before us.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Be th Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , 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.

March 18, 2015

jam 

# Order

Clerk March 18, 2015

1 51078

KEVIN SCOTT VARNER

,

Plaintiff,

v SC: 1 51078

A GC : 1883

- 14

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION

,

Defendant.

___________________________________

On order of the Chief Justice, plaintiff having failed to acknowledge

responsibility for the filing fee as required by the order of February 24, 2015 , the Clerk of

the Court is hereby directed to close this file.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



The undersigned, Arthur C. Wiener, Chief Executive Officer of Galey & Lord, Inc. (the Company), hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the year ending December 27, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Quarterly
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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                        
|----------------------------------------
|                                        
|/s/ Arthur C. Wiener                    
|                                        
|Arthur C. Wiener Chief Executive
Officer
Exhibit 31.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                         THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Philip Luizzo, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Accufacts Pre-Employment
Screening, Inc;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual 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 annual report;

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
registrant and I have:

         a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 annual report is being prepared;

         b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing of this annual
report (the "Evaluation Date"); and


         c) presented in this annual report my conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;


5. I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or
persons performing the equivalent function):


         a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and


         b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
controls; and


6. I have indicated in this annual report whether or not there were significant
changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect
internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation,
including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and
material weaknesses.


Date:   April 2, 2004

/S/ PHILIP LUIZZO.
-----------------------------------------------
Philip Luizzo.
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer





                                     PAGE 23

<PAGE>
Terry BROOKS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-0069

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 7, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
1 The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United St ates District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 06-3156

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Northern District of Iowa. Raul Chavez-Rios, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: September 6, 2007 Filed: September 14, 2007

___________ Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Raul Chavez-Rios (Chavez-Rios) pled guilty to conspiring to distribute methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of a pa rk, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B), 860(a), and 846 (Count 1); and distributing methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of a park, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), and 860(a) (Counts 2-4). Chavez-Rios acknowledge d before entering his plea that he was subject to a statutory mandatory minimum of 10 years in prison on Count 1. The district court 1 sentenced Chavez-Rios to the statutory minimum 120 months’-2- imprisonment and 5 years’ supervised releas e with the sentences on the counts to run concurrently. On appeal, Ch avez-Rios’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing the sent ence is unreasonable under United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005). This argument is unavailing. Because Chavez-Rios did not qualify for a substantia l-assistance departure or for safety-valve relief, the district court had no authority to impose a sentence below the statutory minimum. See United States v. Gregg , 451 F.3d 930, 937 (8th Cir. 2006); United States v. Chacon , 330 F.3d 1065, 1066 (8th Cir. 2003).
After reviewing the record i ndependently under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we have found no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. We grant counsel leave to withdraw, and we affirm.

______________________________
#### IN RE: Sergei FREIDZON, Debtor. Sergei Freidzon, Debtor-Appellant, v. Thomas P. Gorman, Chapter 13 Trustee, Trustee-Appellee.

No. 16-1995.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 20, 2017

Decided: April 27, 2017

*243Sergei Freidzon, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas P. Gorman, Appellee Pro Se.

Before KING, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Sergei Freidzon appeals the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying his motion to vacate the voluntary dismissal of his Chapter 13 petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Freidzon v. Gorman,*No. 1:16-cv-00627-LMB-JFA (E.D. Va. filed July 29, 2016 and entered Aug. 1, 2016). Although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny Freidzon’s motions for appointment of counsel and for an interpreter. 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*
George Jermaine JOHNSON, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D16-5267

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

October 19, 2017

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Pursuant to the notice of voluntary dismissal filed herein, this appeal is dismissed.