alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 Washington, D.C. 20549
 Form 10-K/A
 (Amendment No. 2)
 þ
    
    ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008
 OR
 o
    
    TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 For the transition period from            to
 Commission file number: 001-31783
 RAE Systems Inc.
 (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
 Delaware(State or other jurisdiction of 
incorporation or organization)
    
    77-0280662(I.R.S. Employer
Identification No.)3775 North First Street San Jose, California(Address of principal executive offices)
    
    95134(Zip Code)
 408-952-8200
(Registrants telephone number, including area code)
 Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
 Title of Each Class
    
    Name of Each Exchange on Which RegisteredCommon Stock, $0.001 par value per share
    
    NYSE Alternext US
 Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:
None
 o þ
 o þ
 þ o
 þ
  Large accelerated filer o
Accelerated filer þ
Non-accelerated filer o(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)
Smaller reporting company o o þ
  DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE




---



##### 



SIGNATURES
  RAE SYSTEMS INC.By:
    /s/  Robert I. ChenRobert I. ChenPresident and Chief Executive Officer KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS
  Signature
    
    Title
    
    Date/s/ Robert I. Chen
Robert I. Chen
    
    President, Chief Executive Officer and
Chairman of the Board
(Principal Executive Officer)
    
    January 28, 2010/s/ Randall Gausman
Randall Gausman
    
    Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer (Principal Financial and
Accounting Officer)
    
    January 28, 2010/s/ Peter C. Hsi
Peter C. Hsi
    
    Chief Technology Officer, Vice President
of Emerging Technologies Development
and Director
    
    January 28, 2010/s/ Lyle D. Feisel,  by
Randall Gausman as
Attorney-in-Fact
Lyle D. Feisel
    
    Director
    
    January 28, 2010/s/ Sigrun Hjelmqvist, 
by Randall Gausman as
Attorney-in-Fact
Sigrun Hjelmqvist
    
    Director
    
    January 28, 2010Keh-Shew Lu
    
    Director/s/ James W. Power, by
Randall Gausman as
Attorney-in-Fact
James W. Power
    
    Director
    
    January 28, 2010Susan Wang
    
    Director
 -2-
Willie FUDGE, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D16-4126

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

November 27, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Robert HOPES, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-51377 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed July 13, 2017

Joseph H. Gay, Jr;, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Laura G. Greenberg, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Maureen Scott Franco, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Robert Hopes appeals following his guilty plea conviction of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He relies on *United States v. Lopez,*514 U.S. 549, 115 S.Ct. 1624, 131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995), to argue that § 922(g)(1) unconstitutionally extends the reach of the Commerce Clause to the mere non-commercial possession of a firearm. Hopes contends that a felon’s possession of a firearm, like possession of a firearm near a school, the offense at issue in *Lopez,*does not have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. He concedes, however, that his argument is foreclosed by circuit precedent, and he raises the issue to preserve it for Supreme Court review.

The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance; in the alternative, it requests an extension of time to file its brief. The Government asserts that the parties are in agreement that, under circuit precedent, Hopes’s challenge to the constitutionality of § 922(g) is foreclosed. Summary affirmance is proper where, among other instances, “the posi*338tion of one of the parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case.” *Groendyke Tramp., Inc. v. Davis,*406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).

“This court has repeatedly emphasized that the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) is not open to question.” *United States v. De Leon,*170 F.3d 494, 499 (5th Cir. 1999); see *also United States v. Alcantar,*733 F.3d 143, 146 (5th Cir. 2013). *In United States v. Rawls,*85 F.3d 240, 242 (5th Cir. 1996), we rejected a challenge to the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) on the basis that neither the holding nor the reasoning in *Lopez*constitutionally invalidates § 922(g)(1).

In view of the foregoing, the Government’s motion for Summary affirmance is GRANTED. The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

The certification set forth below is being submitted in
connection with the Quarterly Report of First Data Corporation on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended June 30, 2006 (the Report) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

Henry C. Duques, the Chief
Executive Officer of First Data Corporation, certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of First Data Corporation.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                         |  |  |  |                                        
|------------------------ |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------
|                         |  | 
|Date: September 15, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/ Henry C. Duques                    
|                         |  |  |  | Henry C. Duques Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS OF ARCADIAN PARTNER'S, L.P. INCLUDED IN FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTERLY
PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1996, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         169,319<F1>
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  125,726
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,534
<INVENTORY>                                    118,342
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               423,936
<PP&E>                                         788,032
<DEPRECIATION>                                 230,264
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,050,593
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          147,537
<BONDS>                                        510,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     329,236
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,050,593
<SALES>                                        935,164
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               935,164
<CGS>                                          680,415
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  680,415
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   247
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              31,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                182,619
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,392
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            169,865
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   169,865
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>CASH INCLUDES $58 MILLION OF RESTRICTED RESERVES.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Jimmy Lee BROOKS, Jr. v. STATE

CR-16-0666

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

June 21, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Charles ROBINSON, Appellant, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Appellee.

No. 1D16-3997

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 7, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
0 

0 

Prepared by: 

Mitsubishi Chemical Medience Corporation 

January 28, 2014 

1 
0 

0 

2 
0 

0 

3 
0 

0 

4 
0 

0 

5 
0 

0 

6 
0 

0 

7 
0 

0 

8 
0 

0 

9 
0 

0 

10 
0 

0 

11 
0 

12 
0 

0 

13 
0 

0 

14 
0 

0 

15 
0 

0 

16 
0 

0 

17 
0 

0 

18 
0 

0 

19 
0 

0 

20 
0 

0 

21 
0 

0 

22 
0 

c 

23 
0 

0 

24 
0 

0 

25 
0 

0 

26 
0 

0 

27 
0 

0 

28 
0 

0 

29 
0 

30 
0 Appendix 1 

31 
0 

0 

32 
0 Appendix 2 

() 

33 
0 

0 

34 
0 Appendix 3 

0 

35 
0 

0 

36 
0 Appendix 4 

0 

37 
0 

0 

38 
0 Appendix 5 

39 
0 

0 

40 
0 

0 

41 
0 

. 42 
0 

43 
0 

0 

44 
0 

0 

45 
0 

0 

46 
0 

0 

47 
0 

0 

48 
0 

0 

49
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER>                   1000              
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       SEP-27-1997               
<PERIOD-START>                          SEP-29-1996               
<PERIOD-END>                            MAR-29-1997               
<CASH>                                    5,028               
<SECURITIES>                                  0               
<RECEIVABLES>                            86,136             
<ALLOWANCES>                                  0       
<INVENTORY>                              85,546             
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        179,344             
<PP&E>                                  173,857             
<DEPRECIATION>                           61,215            
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          331,578               
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    50,171             
<BONDS>                                 167,920             
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0       
<PREFERRED>                                   0       
<COMMON>                                    120         
<OTHER-SE>                               97,649             
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            331,578               
<SALES>                                 240,357             
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        240,357             
<CGS>                                   213,927             
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           213,927             
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              0       
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0       
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        6,113            
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          11,935           
<INCOME-TAX>                              4,613           
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       7,322           
<DISCONTINUED>                                0       
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0         
<CHANGES>                                     0       
<NET-INCOME>                              7,322           
<EPS-PRIMARY>                               .63           
<EPS-DILUTED>                               .61         
        

</TABLE>
#### Teresa MILLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, a/k/a WVDOC; Commissioner Jim Rubenstein; Warden Laura Lori Nohe; Warden Thomas; Warden Jeff Stinnett, CCC; Mrs. Smith, CCC; Mrs. Henderson, CCC; CCC; Paul Stump, CED pod unit man; Shelby Searls, A&B Pod unit man; Laura Long, Counselor; Samantha Rollins, Counselor; Jennifer Cauldwell, Counselor; John Judy, Counselor; Ms. Baine; Rebbecca Roush, OA-Mailine; Anthoney King, Shift Com.; Mrs. Edwards, Int. Officer; Dr. Brycon, PSI Med; Ave Roush, PSI Med; Susie Birdsong, Librarian; Roberts; Mrs. Ray; Mrs. M, Si Med, Defendants-Appellees, and Attorney General of West Virginia; Mr. Meed; Mr. Meek; Lakin Correctional Center; Bird Song, Defendants.

No. 17-6463

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 17, 2017

Decided: August 22, 2017

Teresa Miller, Appellant Pro Se.

Before KEENAN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

*116Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Teresa Miller seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Miller that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. *Wright v. Collins,*766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); *see also Thomas v. Arn,*474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Miller has waived appellate review by failing to file timely objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in formal pauperis 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*
**EXHIBIT 32.1 – CEO Certification**

 

**HEARTLAND, INC.**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUNT TO**

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

 

In connection with the amended Annual Report of Heartland, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB/A-2 for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Thomas C. Miller, Chief Executive Officer, President and Director of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss. 1350, as added by ss. 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 as of and for the period covered by the Report.

 

/s/ Thomas C. Miller

Thomas C. Miller, CEO, President

And member of the Board of Directors

 

Ugust 11, 2006

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ("Section 906"), or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Heartland, Inc., and will be retained by Heartland, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Hector Manuel PEREZ-GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-51110 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 20, 2017

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Hector Manuel Perez-Gonzalez, Pro Se

Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Hector Manuel Perez-Gonza*151lez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Perez-Gonzalez has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivo-lous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *151published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6332 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to limit the participation 

of staff of the Internal Revenue Service in conferences being carried 

out by the Independent Office of Appeals for the purposes of resolving 

a taxpayer dispute. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 9, 2023 

Ms. DE LA CRUZ (for herself, Mr. WEBER of Texas, and Mr. GOODEN of 

Texas) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to limit the 

participation of staff of the Internal Revenue Service 

in conferences being carried out by the Independent Office of Appeals for the purposes of resolving a taxpayer 

dispute. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Strengthen Taxpayer 

5 Rights Act of 2023’’. 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6332 IH

1 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON STAFF PARTICIPATION IN INDE2 PENDENT OFFICE OF APPEALS CON3 FERENCES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 7803(e) of the Internal 

5 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end 

6 the following new paragraph: 

7 ‘‘(8) CONSENT OF TAXPAYER FOR PARTICIPA8 TION IN CONFERENCE.—No individual employed by 

9 the Internal Revenue Service, other than an em10 ployee of the Internal Revenue Service Independent 

11 Office of Appeals, may appear in a conference being 

12 carried out as part of the resolution process de13 scribed in paragraph (3) without the consent of the 

14 taxpayer that requested an appeal under this sub15 section.’’. 

16 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

17 this section shall apply to conferences held after the date 

18 of the enactment of this section. 

Æ 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 25, 2016

No. 04-15-00692-CV

John SHULL,

Appellant

v.

WESTOVER CROSSING (SAN ANTONIO) HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC.; 

Spectrum Association Management, LP; and Buck (Delvin) Benson,

Appellees

From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014-CI-15954

Honorable Karen H. Pozza, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Pro se appellant John Shull filed his brief on October 17, 2016. The printed brief consists 

of eighty-nine pages but it does not contain a certificate of compliance. Contra TEX. R. APP. P.

9.4(i)(3). The included portions of the brief contain more than 30,000 words, over twice the 

allowed maximum, contra id. R. 9.4(i)(2)(B), and the brief’s typefaces are smaller than required,

contra id. R. 9.4(d),(e). The brief fails to conform with the Rules.

This court may strike a brief that fails to conform with the Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure. Id. R. 9.4(k). Therefore, we STRIKE Appellant’s brief and ORDER appellant John 

Shull to file an amended brief within TEN DAYS of the date of this order. The amended brief 

must correct all of the violations listed above and fully comply with the applicable rules. 

See, e.g., id. R. 9.4, 9.5, 38.1. 

If the amended brief does not comply with this order, we “may strike the brief, prohibit 

[Appellant] from filing another, and proceed as if [Appellant] had failed to file a brief.” See id.

R. 38.9(a); see also id. R. 38.8(a) (authorizing this court to dismiss an appeal if an appellant fails 

to timely file a brief). 

If Appellant timely files a brief that complies with this order, Appellees’ brief will be due 

thirty days after Appellant’s brief is filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(b). 
_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 25th day of October, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### The Central Bank of Troy, Respondent, *v.*William Heydorn, Appellant.

Argued and decided with *Central Bank of Troy*v. *Heydorn, ante*p. 260.
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 3.1.1
                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                     OF THE
                          CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                              WOLFPACK CORPORATION

         WOLFPACK CORPORATION (the "Corporation"), a corporation organized and
existing under and by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of
Delaware,

         DOES HEREBY CERTIFY:

         FIRST: That the Board of Directors of the Corporation, by the unanimous
written consent of its members, filed with the minutes of the Board, adopted a
resolution proposing and declaring advisable the following amendment to the
Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation:

         RESOLVED, that the Certificate of Incorporation of WOLFPACK CORPORATION
         be amended by changing the First Article thereof so that, as amended,
         said Article shall be and read as follows:

                                     "FIRST:
                                      -----

         The name of the corporation (hereinafter called the "corporation") is
equitel, inc."

         SECOND: That in lieu of a meeting and vote of stockholders, holders of
a majority of the outstanding stock of the Corporation have signed and consented
to the writing setting forth approval of the aforesaid amendment in accordance
with the provisions of Sections 242 and 228 of the General Corporation Law of
the State of Delaware.

         THIRD: That the aforesaid amendment was duly adopted in accordance with
the applicable provisions of Sections 242 and 228 of the General Corporation Law
of the State of Delaware.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned authorized officer of the
Corporation has signed this Certificate of Amendment on this _____day of
February, 2002.

                                          WOLFPACK CORPORATION


                                          By: ________________________________
                                          Name:    Mary Walker
                                          Title:   President
#### KATHLEEN O. MINNEMAN *v.*BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF NORWICH ET AL.

*Kathleen O. Minneman,*pro se, in support of the petition.

*Timothy E. Welsh,*in opposition.

Decided January 8, 1998

The plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 47 Conn. App. 913 (AC 16746), is denied.