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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                              94
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,778
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,239
<INVENTORY>                                      6,567
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                17,568
<PP&E>                                           7,578
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,897
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  21,448
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,183
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            15
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,995
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    21,448
<SALES>                                         11,401
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,220
<CGS>                                            7,334
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,334
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,197
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 164
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,475)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,475)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,475)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.36)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.36)


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

IN THE INTEREST OF: S.K., A MINOR

PETITION OF: S.K., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 444 MAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 28th day of July, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
**EXHIBIT 12.1****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Joseph Fuda, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F, as amended by this Form20-F/A, of Micromem Technologies Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial 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 forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b. Paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC transitioninstructions contained in SEC release 34-47986;  c. 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  d. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscalquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting. 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’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 thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely 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 managementor other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.        Date: June 23, 2006 /s/ Joseph Fuda   Joseph Fuda   Chief Executive Officer
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 12-15272

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cr-00041-SPM-GRJ-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ERIC PAUL SANDBERG,

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

_________________________

(June 27, 2013)

Before MARCUS, JORDAN and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM:

Chet Kaufman, appointed counsel for Eric Paul Sandberg in this direct 

criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant 

and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 

L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that 

Case: 12-15272 Date Filed: 06/27/2013 Page: 1 of 2 
2

counsel=s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because 

independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, 

counsel=s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Sandberg=s conviction and 

sentence are AFFIRMED.

Case: 12-15272 Date Filed: 06/27/2013 Page: 2 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

Nos. 09-165C, 09-882C 

Filed: December 2, 2015 

**************************************** 

 *

 *

EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, *

 *

 Plaintiff, *

 *

v. *

 *

THE UNITED STATES, *

 *

 Defendant. *

 *

 *

**************************************** 

ORDER 

On November 16, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Motion To Lift Stay. The Motion did not advance 

any reasons that were not already discussed in the October 23, 2015 Oral Argument and the court’s 

November 10, 2015 Memorandum Opinion And Order. Therefore, the Motion To Lift Stay is 

denied. 

The court will reconsider lifting the stay, following the entry of final judgment in Shell Oil 

Company v. United States, Case. No. 06-141. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

s/ Susan G. Braden 

SUSAN G. BRADEN 

Judge
|   | 1) | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or      78o(d)) and |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2) | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company      as of the dates and for the periods covered by the  Report. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| August 12, 2009 | /s/ Kyle C. Cook                          |
|-----------------|-------------------------------------------|
| Dated           | Kyle      C. Cook                         |
|            | Chief      Financial Officer andTreasurer |

----
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

O. L.

,

Appellant,

v.

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY

AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES,

Appellee

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 4

- 00 1 84

- C V

Appeal from the

65 th District Court

of El Paso C ounty, Texas

(TC# 201 2 DCM 09529 )

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS D’Anne Asleson’s second r equest for an extension of time within

which to file the Reporter ’ s Record until July 2 1, 2014

. NO FURTHER REQUESTS FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THE REPORTER ’ S RECORD WILL BE CONSIDERED

BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that D’Anne Asleson, Official Court Reporter for the 65 th Child

Protection Court for El Paso County, Texas, prepare the Reporter ’ s Record and forward the same

to this Court on or before July 2 1, 2014

.

If the Reporter’s Record is not filed with this Court by July 21 , 2014 , this Court will

find it necessary to send this case back to the trial court for a hearing as to why the Reporter’s

Record has not been filed.

I T IS SO ORDERED this 9 th day of Ju ly , 20 1 4

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure , C.J., Rivera and Rodriguez , JJ.
#### The State v. Stubbs.

Appeal: criminal case: no abstract nor argument, and no error found.

*Appeal from, Story District Court*— Sos. John L. Stevens, Judge.

Thursday, December 15, 1887.

The defendant was indicted, tried and convicted of the crime of cheating by false pretenses, and he appeals.

No appearance for appellant.

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

Rothrock, J.

The cause is presented to us upon a transcript without abstract or argument. We discover no error in the record, and the judgment is Affirmed.
# • AVS

Quality Management System QPM# AIR-ANM-030-F7 Revision
Title: Domestic New Action Worksheet with S8 

## Record ofContacts 2010-/211 OMS Docket No. FAA-21l6' -

### ------ Date: 9/0112007

With whom outside the FAA hasthis proposal been discussed (e.g., ATA, RAA, ALPA, etc.)?

Organization Persor Contacted Date ATA Joe White 04/01/2U09 ATA JoeWhitt' 08/IUI2UIU

I UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED Check the Master List toVerify That This isthJ Correct Revision Before Use
**Exhibit 32(a)**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

OF QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q 

OF PINNACLEDATA SYSTEMS, INC. 

FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2007 

The undersigned is the Chief Executive Officer of Pinnacle Data Systems, Inc. (the “Issuer”). This certification is made pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This certificationaccompanies the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Issuer for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2007. 

I, Michael R. Sayre, certify that, theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and that information contained in theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer. 

Thiscertification is executed as of November 14, 2007.
##### 



Exhibit 32.01
 STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
OF MOVE, INC.
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
§ 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; and2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.
 /s/ W. MICHAEL LONGW. Michael LongChief Executive OfficerMove, Inc.Date: February 29, 2008
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andre ALSTON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-17418 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(August 18, 2017)

Roberta Josephina Bodnar, U.S. Attorney’s Office—FLM, Ocala, FL, Arthur Lee Bentley, III, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tam-, pa,' FL, Frank Merrill Talbot, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Jacksonville, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Andre Alston, Pro Se

Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, JULIE CARNES, and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

*480PER CURIAM:

Stephen A. Mosca, appointed counsel for Andre Alston in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of mérit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Alston’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7153

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

WANSLEY OTTO MASSEY, a/k/a Pops,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 97-7154

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

WANSLEY OTTO MASSEY, a/k/a Pops,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. William L. Osteen, Sr.,

District Judge, sitting by designation. (CR-94-170-3-3-V)
2

Submitted: December 11, 1997 Decided: December 30, 1997

Before HALL and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wansley Otto Massey, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C.F. Shappert,

Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying

his motions for disclosure of the grand jury concurrence form, a

Batson challenge form, and challenging the jurisdiction of the district court. We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we dismiss the

appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v.

Massey, No. CA-94-170-3-3-V (W.D.N.C. July 29 & 31, 1997). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk March 29, 2010

s0322 

# Order

March 29, 2010

140104

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 140104 COA: 284100 Macomb CC: 2 007-002480-FC STEPHEN C. GRANT, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 6, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### Curtis v. Lowman et al.

Verdict: on conflicting evidence: not disturbed on appeal.

*Appeal from Cass District Court.*

Tuesday, March 15, 1887.

Action upon an alleged contract to pay the plaintiff a debt due from ona . Fuson. There was a trial to the court without a jury, and judgment was 'rendered against the plaintiff for costs. She appeals.

*H. (r. Curtís*and *F. B. Huckstep,*for appellant.

*L. L. De*Lano, for appellee.

Adams, Ch., J.

The defendant took a bill of sale of certain hotel fnrni-. *760ture from one J. W. Fuson and Mary E. Fuson. The Fusóns at the time were indebted to the plaintiff, and she avers that defendants, in consideration of the conveyance to them of the hotel furniture, agreed to pay the Fusons’ debt to the plaintiff. The defendants denied that they made such agreement. The evidence in respect to-such agreement is in conflict. The action is at law, and we cannot disturb the judgment.

Affirmed.
454 A.2d 129

#### Teresa BERRESFORD, Appellant, v. Russell BERRESFORD, Joseph Berresford, Dolores Berresford.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued Dec. 6, 1982.

Filed Dec. 23, 1982.

*279William J. Krencewicz, Shenandoah, for appellant.

Maureen E. Krueger, Pottsville, for appellees.

Before SPAETH, WICKERSHAM and LIPEZ, JJ.

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from an order entered over two and one half years ago dismissing appellant’s petition for custody of her child and awarding custody to appellee.

The record was not transmitted to this court until July 1, 1982, and even now the record is not complete, for the lower court has not filed an opinion in support of its order. It is therefore impossible for this court to decide the merits of the lower court’s decision:

> So as to facilitate [our] broad review, we have consistently emphasized that the hearing court must provide us ... with a complete and comprehensive opinion which contains a thorough analysis of the record and specific reasons for the court’s ultimate decision, [citations omitted] ... We have often noted that the hearing judge is in a far superior position to determine matters of credibility, and to evaluate the attitude and sincerity of the witnesses. [citations omitted] Such an advantage is negated, however, when the trial court fails to enunciate its findings on credibility, or reveal the details of its decision.

> *280While we might review the record and reach a conclusion without the benefit of a proper analysis by the lower court, such a course would serve neither the best interests of the children nor the Commonwealth. We are loath to pass judgment on something as precious and intrinsically valuable as a child’s welfare without every possible piece of information bearing on the subject. It is for this reason that we demand a full record and a probing analysis thereof.

> *In re Arnold,*286 Pa.Super. 171, 174-75, 428 A.2d 627, 628-29 (1981).

*See also Commonwealth ex rel. Newcomer v. King,*301 Pa.Super. 239, 447 A.2d 630 (1982).

Accordingly, we shall remand the case with instructions that a hearing be conducted as soon as possible. At that hearing the lower court shall receive such evidence as necessary to bring the record up to date. The record shall then be transcribed forthwith, and the lower court shall promptly enter an order awarding custody, accompanying its order with an opinion in the form required by law. Pending these further proceedings, the child may remain with appellee. We do not retain jurisdiction.

So ordered.
#### In the Matter of the Accounting of Midwood Trust Company, as Trustee under the Will of Thomas Fee, Deceased. Midwood Trust Company, as Trustee for the Benefit of Thomas F. Hodgman, an Infant, Appellant and Respondent; Beatrice M. Judge, as Special Guardian for Thomas F. Hodgman, an Infant, Respondent and Appellant.

Argued February 24, 1943;

decided April 8, 1943.

*712
      *Beatrice M. Judge,*special guardian for Thomas F. Hodgman, an infant, appellant and respondent.

*John S. Russell*for Midwood Trust Company, as Trustee respondent and appellant.

Order affirmed, without costs; no opinion.

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Lewis and Desmond, JJ. Dissenting: Finch, Rippey and Conway, JJ.
Jerome MCCRAY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-1795

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 15, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 
COTELLIGENT GROUP, INC. CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE QUARTER ENDED
JUNE 30, 1998, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                          0001004963   
<NAME>                                         COTELLIGENT GROUP, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
<CURRENCY>                                     US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         44666
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  51600
<ALLOWANCES>                                   1725
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               95946
<PP&E>                                         14017
<DEPRECIATION>                                 5650
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 122941
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          27757
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       141
<OTHER-SE>                                     94787
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   122941
<SALES>                                        73049
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               73049
<CGS>                                          52183
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  15430
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               2
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (310)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                5744
<INCOME-TAX>                                   2229
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            3515
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   3515
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.25
        



</TABLE>
#### Luis FEUSIER, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, Respondent

No. 16-60281 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed July 14, 2017

Luis Feusier, Pro Se

Paula Kei Biderman, Helen H. Krapels, U.S. Parole Commission, Washington, DC, Respondent

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Luis Feusier 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). Feusier 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 petition presents no nonfrivolous issue for review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to *352withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the PETITION FOR REVIEW IS DISMISSED. *See*6th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.