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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
balance sheet and statement of operations found on pages 3 and 4 of the
Company's form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 1998 and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such financial statements

</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>            9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1998  
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1998  
<PERIOD-END>                              SEP-30-1998  
<CASH>                                         19,718  
<SECURITIES>                                3,293,374  
<RECEIVABLES>                                       0  
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0  
<INVENTORY>                                         0  
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            3,350,788  
<PP&E>                                        130,787  
<DEPRECIATION>                               (56,488) 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              3,443,007  
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          84,666  
<BONDS>                                             0  
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0  
<PREFERRED>                                         0  
<COMMON>                                          373  
<OTHER-SE>                                  3,357,968  
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                3,443,007  
<SALES>                                             0  
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    0  
<CGS>                                               0  
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 665,302  
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0  
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0  
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0  
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (530,890) 
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0  
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (530,890) 
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0  
<CHANGES>                                           0  
<NET-INCOME>                                (530,890) 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (.20) 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0  
                                                                    
                                                      



</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leroy N. INGRAM, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-6885

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 15, 2016

Decided: November 21, 2016

Leroy N. Ingram, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Mastandrea-Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*806PER CURIAM:

Leroy N. Ingrain seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of ap-pealability. See 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 Ingram 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
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 Blockbuster Inc.
(the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, John F. Antioco, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | 1. |  | the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



Date: March 29, 2005



/s/  John F. AntiocoJohn F. Antioco Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer




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

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)

FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL (SAP)

OPEN MEETING

April 19

- 2 1

, 201 6

FIFRA SAP WEB SITE http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/

DOCKET NUMBER: EPA

– HQ

– OPP

– 201 6

– 0 062

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

CONFERENCE CENTER LOBBY LEVEL

ONE POTOMAC YARD (SOUTH BLDG.)

2777 S. CRYSTAL DRIVE, ARLINGTON, VA 22202

Chlorpyrifos: Analysis of Biomonitoring Data Please note that all

times are approximate (see note at end of Agenda).

9:00 A.M. Opening of Meeting and Administrative Procedures

– Fred Jenkins, Ph.D.,

Designated Federal Official, Office of Science Coordination and Policy (OSCP)

, EPA

9:05 A.M. Introduction and Identification of Panel Members

– James McManaman

, Ph.D.,

FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Session Chair

9:10 A.M. Welcome and Opening Remarks

– Jack Housenger, Director, Office of Pesticides

Programs (OPP), EPA

9:25 A.M. EPA Presentations

10:30 A.M. Break

10:45 A.M. EPA Presentations

12:00 P.M. Lunch

1:00 P.M. EPA Presentations (Cont’d)

3:00 P.M. Break

3:15 P.M. EPA Presentations (Cont’d)

5:30 P.M. Adjourn Day 1

Tuesday April, 19 20169:00 A.M. Opening of Meeting and Administrative Procedures

– Fred Jenkins, Ph.D.,

Designated Federal Official, Office of Science Coordination and Policy, EPA

9:05 A.M. Introduction and Identification of Panel Members

– James McManaman

, Ph.D.,

FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Session Chair

9:10 A.M. Follow

- up from the previous day presentations

9:40 A.M. Public Comments

10:30 A.M. Break

10:40 A.M. Public Comments (Cont’d)

12:00 P.M. Lunch

1:00 P.M. Charge to Panel

3:00 P.M. Break

3:15 P.M. Charge to Panel

5:30 P.M. Adjourn Day 2

Wednesday, April 20, 20169:00 A.M. Opening of Meeting and Administrative Procedures

– Fred Jenkins, Ph.D.,

Designated Federal Official, Office of Science Coordination and Policy, EPA

9:05 A.M. Introduction and Identification of Panel Members

– James McManaman

, Ph.D.,

FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Session Chair

9:10 A.M. Follow

- up from the previous day discussions

9:30 A.M. Charge to Panel (Cont’d)

10:30 A.M. Break

10:45 A.M. Charge to Panel (Cont’d)

12:00 P.M. Lunch

1:00 P.M. Charge to Panel (Cont’d)

3:00 P.M. Break

3:15 P.M. Charge to Panel (Cont’d)

5:30 P.M. Adjourn

Please be advised that agenda times are approximate; when the discussion for one topic is

completed, discussions for the next topic will begin. For further information, please contact

the Designated Federal Official for this meeting, Dr. Fred Jenkins, via telephone: (202) 564

- 3327; fax: (202) 564

- 8382; or email: jenkins.fred@epa.gov. Day 3

Thursday, April 21, 2016
#### John V. GOUGH, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Deputy DEAKINS; Justin Livingston, Deputy First Class; Calvert County Sheriff Office, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-1209

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 20, 2017

Decided: April 25, 2017

John V. Gough, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

John V. Gough, Jr., appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil action as *180barred by res judicata. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. *See*4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Gough’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Gough has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. *See Williams v. Giant Food Inc.,*370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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*
December 17, 2013

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

LENG ABBASSI, Appellant

NO. 14-13-00531-CV V.

TRAVIS HAILEY, Appellee

________________________________

Today the Court heard appellant's motion to dismiss the appeal from the 

judgment signed by the court below on May 13, 2013. Having considered the 

motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by 

appellant, Leng Abbassi.

We further order that mandate be issued immediately.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
#### The State v. Fortig.

Practice on appeal: criminal case: no appearance for appellant: RECORD REVIEWED AND JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

*Appeal from Floyd District Court.*

Tuesday, June 14, 1887.

No appearance for appellant.

*A. J. Baker, Attorney-general,*for the State.

Beck, J.

The defendant, with another, was jointly indicted for maintaining a nuisance by keeping a place for the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors, and was convicted, the other defendant being acquitted. Defendant now appeals to this court. The case is submitted to us for decision without an assignment of errors, brief or argument, or any appearance for defendant. We have carefully considered the record in the case, without finding any error or irregularity in the proceedings.

Affirmed.
#### Vassos Saroodis, Appellant, *v.*Liberty Motor Freight Lines, Inc., et al., Respondents.

Argued April 5, 1943;

decided May 27, 1943.

*807
      *Nelson R. Pirnie*and *Charles A. Cusick*for appellant.

*Perry E. Leary*for respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ. Taking no part: Finch, J.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Brian GRACO, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-31166 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 26, 2017

Jeffrey Ryan McLaren, Kevin G. Boit-mann, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Diane Hol-lenshead Copes, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Celia Clary Rhoads, Esq., Valerie Welz Jusselin, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s, Office East*404ern District of Louisiana, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Defendant-Appellant Brian Graco was indicted for receiving child pornography. Graco filed a notice of an insanity defense to be supported by testimony from Dr. Frederic J. Sautter. The Government filed a motion in limine seeking to prevent Gra-co from raising an insanity defense or introducing any evidence of his alleged post-traumatic stress disorder. Relying on *United States v. Eff,*524 F.3d 712, 717-19 (5th Cir. 2008), the district court found that Dr. Sautter’s report did not show that Graco satisfied the elements required for an insanity defense under 18 U.S.C. § 17. The district court granted the Government’s motion. Graco pleaded guilty and specifically reserved the right to appeal the granting of the Government’s motion.

We review a district court’s exclusion of expert testimony for abuse of discretion. *United States v. Ogle,*328 F.3d 182, 188 (5th Cir. 2003). In *Eff,*we held that an insanity defense under § 17 requires that the defendant be completely unable to appreciate the quality of his actions and that having only a diminished capacity to do so was insufficient for the defense. *Eff,*524 F.3d at 718-720. Graco concedes that the district court was bound by the existing definition of insanity in § 17 and that *Eff*governs our review. Graco raises a challenge to § 17 to preserve it for further direct review.

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.
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Olin MILLEN Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-4463

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: July 7, 2017

Filed: July 17, 2017

David A. Harris, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Arkansas, Fort Smith, AR, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Christopher Aaron Holt, John B. Schis-ler, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Fayette-ville, AR, for Defendant-Appellant

Olin Millen, Pro Se

Before LOKEN, ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Olin Millen directly appeals the within-Guidelines-range sentence imposed by the district court1 after he pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, *465in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2). Millen’s counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), challenging the district court’s determination of Mil-len’s criminal history score and the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.

We need not reach the.merits of Millen’s argument regarding his criminal history score because any error in assessing two points, instead of one point, for the conviction at issue was harmless. See U.S.S.G. § 5 Sentencing Table; United States v. Gutierrez, 437 F.3d 733, 737 (8th Cir. 2006) (even if inclusion of two additional criminal history points was error, any such error was harmless because it 'did not affect defendant’s criminal history category and did not alter Guidelines range). Further, after thorough review, we conclude that the district court’s carefully considered sentence was not an abuse of discretion. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a); United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (standard of review); see also United States v. Stults, 575 F.3d 834, 849 (8th Cir. 2009) (where court makes individualized assessment based on facts presented, addressing proffered information in consideration of § 3553(a) factors, sentence is not unreasonable). Finally, having independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal.

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment.

1

. The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      Exhibit 11


                      OPTION CARE, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                      COMPUTATIONS OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                       (In thousands, except share data)



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                          THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                               March 31,
                                                           1998         1997
                                                         --------    ---------
<S>                                                      <C>         <C>
Net income............................................   $    865    $    922
                                                         ========    ========

Shares issued and outstanding.........................     10,805      10,552

Weighted average shares issued........................          3          11
                                                         --------    --------

Weighted average common shares outstanding............     10,808      10,563

Additional shares included assuming exercise of
  stock options using treasury stock method...........         62         235
                                                         --------    --------

Weighted average common and common equivalent shares..     10,870      10,798
                                                         ========    ========

Net income per common shares outstanding (basic)......       0.08        0.09
                                                         ========    ========

Net income per common and common equivalent shares
  shares (diluted)....................................       0.08        0.09
                                                         ========    ========
</TABLE>
### INTEGRATED RISK ASSESSMENT IN
SUPPORT OF MCAN J-10-2

EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0994

JANUARY 31 2012
#### DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee FOR NEW CENTURY HOME EQUITY LOAN TRUST, SERIES 2005-C, ASSET BACKED PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Cynthia WATSON; Richard Watson, Defendants-Appellants

No. 16-51375 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed September 20, 2017

Cody Patrick Peterson, Esq., Barry A. McCain, McGlinchey Stafford, P.L.L.C., Dallas, TX, Mark Douglas Cronenwett, Mackie Wolf Ziéntz & Mann, P.C., Dallas, TX, Stephanie Laird Tolson, McGlinchey Stafford, P.L.L.C., Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Cynthia Watson, Pro Se

Richard Watson, Pro Se

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Defendants-Appellants Cynthia Watson and Richard Watson appeal the ruling of the district court that Plaintiff-Appellee Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for New Century Home Equity Loan Trust, Series 2005-C, Asset Backed Pass-Through Certificates, is entitled to summary judgment and the court’s ruling that the real property in dispute is subject to judicial foreclosure. We have reviewed the record on appeal, including but not limited to the briefs of the parties and the district court’s Order of November1, 2016 in explication of its Judgment of that date, and we are satisfied that summary judgment is eminently correct. For essentially the same reasons set out by the district court in its above-said Order, its Judgment is in all respects, 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 10.1 Form of Subscription Agreement


Exhibit 10.1




SIMPLE PRODUCTS CORPORATION

SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT




Simple Products Corporation

9314 South 370 West

Sandy, UT  84070

 

Re:  Simple Products Corporation Common Stock




Ladies and Gentlemen:




The undersigned investor in this Subscription Agreement hereby acknowledges receipt of the Prospectus, dated __________________, 2012, of Simple Products Corporation, a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), and subscribes for the following number of shares upon the terms and conditions set forth in the Prospectus.




The Investor agrees that this Subscription Agreement is subject to availability and acceptance by the Company.




The Investor hereby subscribes for ____________ shares of the Company’s common stock (“Common Stock”) at $2.00 per share, for an aggregate purchase price of $____________. 




Payment of $____________ as payment in full of the purchase price is being made via check directly to the Company.  




If this subscription is rejected by the Company, in whole or in part, for any reason, all funds will be returned within three business days of the Company’s receipt of such funds, without interest or deduction of any kind.

  

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Purchaser Information:




			
	Printed Name:

	  

	  


	  

	  

	  


	Signature;

	  

	  


	  

	  

	  


	Date:

	  

	  


	  

	  

	  


	Address:




	  

	  




_________________________________________________________________________________________________________







The foregoing Subscription is hereby accepted in full on behalf of Simple Products Corporation.  




Date ___________________.




	
	SIMPLE PRODUCTS CORPORATION










By:

____________________________________

Name:

Brian Christensen

Title:

President and Director
Amendment for Persistence Mining Inc. UAS FAR 333 Exemption Package 

Addendum for Requirement 14 CFR 1.1

Public Docket No. FAA-2015-0566

ARMDS

Rotor Small Unmanned Air Vehicle Geological Mapping 

Aircraft Registration #N5414P

Prepared by: Brian Zamudio

President, Persistence Mining Inc.

5666 La Jolla Blvd #315

La Jolla, CA 92037

Zamudio@Icloud.com

Public Docket No. FAA-2015-0566

Date: February 20, 2016

Persistence Mining Inc. (PMI) was granted a FAR 333 Exemption on July 20th, 2015. 

PMI seeks additional regulatory relief to allow commercial operation for agriculture

surveys and hydrology studies during non-daylight hours to enhance the quality of data 

though the use of alternative light sources to excite the hyper spectral range of the 

sensors being used onboard our small unmanned aerial system, ARMDS.

Our safety protocols include the addition of navigation lights in accordance with FAA 

aviation standards, including the port and starboard sides of the craft (port will have a 

red light and starboard will have a green light). In addition, anti-collision lights for 

purposes of safety will be added to the top and bottom. For purposes of the sensor, a

radiating light beam from the sUAS to the ground will have a minimum swath of 20

degrees allowing for easy line of sight visibility by the PIC and spotter.

Operations for the purpose of surveying are permitted under the current Exemption. In 

summary, PMI request that the FAA permit PMI to conduct geological surveys, 

agriculture surveys and hydrology studies at night in strictly rural areas in an effort to 

enhance our surveying technology which will reduce negative inputs into the 

environment via our spectral analysis of soil and water utilizing a sUAS as the vehicle 

for sensor deployment of our environmental application.

If you have any questions regarding this addendum, or require any additional 

information to process PMI’s Petition, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,

Brian Zamudio

President, Persistence Mining Inc.

5666 La Jolla Blvd #315

La Jolla, CA 92037

Zamudio@Icloud.com