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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       1,437,825
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               97,064,782
<ALLOWANCES>                                 8,024,609
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       1,098,641
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             100,374,934
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        52,653
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  18,499,767
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               100,374,934
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            19,835,568
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             9,783,228
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               950,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           4,464,920
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,637,420
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,673,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,964,420
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                149,789
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,814,631
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.58
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Wagner v. Condron.

1. Appeal: practice: evidence wanting. The overruling of a motion for a new trial cannot he reviewed in this court, where the record fails to show that the evidence on which the ruling was made has been preserved.

*Appeal from Sae District Court.*

Monday, June 13, 1887.

This action was brought to recover damages for an injury-alleged to have been sustained from a ball discharged from a revolver held in the hands of the defendant. There was a trial to a jury, and verdict and judgment were rendered for the plaintiff for $1,500. The defendant appeals.

*S. M. E.lwoocl*and *Ed. R.*Duffie, for appellant.

*Mason dk*Thomas, for appellee.

Adams, Ch. J.

The defendant moved for a new trial upon the ground, as alleged, that “ the defendant was not tried to *754a fair and impartial jury; the juror Culp having sat on the grand jury which found an indictment against the defendant for the same acts for which a recovery is sought in this case, which fact was unknown to the defendant or her attorney, as will appear from affidavits hereto attached, and which fact the said juror concealed from the court and the defendant’s attorney upon his examination for cause.” There are set out in the abstract two copies of affidavits; one purporting to be made by the defendant Almira Condron, and the other by her attorney, and together showing the facts stated in the motion. There were also set out in the abstract what purports to be a copy of the record of the impaneling of the grand jury, showing that the juror Culp sat upon the grand jury, and what purports to be a copy of the indictment found against the defendant for the same shooting. The court overruled the motion, and the defendant assigns as error that the motion should have been sustained upon the ground as alleged. The plaintiff filed an additional abstract denying that the eyidence relied upon in support of the motion was ever filed in the case, or made a part of the record. The defendant, by an additional abstract, avers that it was filed and made of record, and appeals to the transcript.

We have examined the transcript, and have to say that it does not appear to us that any evidence was filed or made of record, except the testimony as taken down by the shorthand reporter upon the trial, and the exhibits referred to by him, and we do not find among them the affidavits in question, or entry of the impaneling of the grand jury, or copy of the indictment. The bill of exceptions does not appear to cover any of the proceedings subsequent to the verdict.

Every presumption in favor of the ruling below must be indulged; and, the record being in the condition in which it is, we have to say that the judgment must be

Affirmed.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

In connection with the periodic report of Connetics Corporation (the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Thomas G. Wiggans, President and
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof,
solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States
Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (1) |  | the Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the
periods indicated.
| | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: November 14, 2003

/s/ Thomas G. Wiggans

Thomas G. Wiggans
President and Chief Executive Officer
G. BRAD BECKSTEAD
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT

                                                            330 E. Warm Springs
                                                            Las Vegas, NV 89119
                                                                   702.257.1984
                                                               702.362.0540 fax


March 6, 2002


To Whom It May Concern:

The firm of G. Brad Beckstead, CPA, consents to the inclusion of my report of
March 6, 2002, on the Financial Statements of eClic, Inc. from the inception
date of March 1, 1999 through December 31, 2001, in its annual Form 10KSB
filing to be filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission.

Signed,


/s/ G. Brad Beckstead
----------------------
G. Brad Beckstead, CPA



<PAGE>
CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND


CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
connection with Annual Report of Zealous, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A
for the year ended December 31, 2008 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the “Report”), I,  Milton C. Ault, III, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1.
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and





2.
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the
      dates presented and the consolidated result of operations of the Company
      for the periods presented.





By:
            /s/Milton C. Ault, IIIName:
            Milton
      C. Ault, IIITitle:
            Principal
      Executive Officer,Principal
      Financial Officer and DirectorDate:
            May
      18, 2009





This
certification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Zealous, Inc. and will be retained by Zealous, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
**EXHIBIT - 31.1**

MOSSIMO, INC.

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVEOFFICER

I, Mossimo Giannulli, Chairman andCo-Chief Executive 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 officers 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 and have:

(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, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, made known to us by others, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;

(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’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s first fiscal quarter) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.               The registrant’s other certifying officers 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 controls 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/ MOSSIMO GIANNULLI                   |   |
|-----------------------------------------|--------|
| Mossimo Giannulli                       |
| Chairman and Co-Chief Executive Officer |
| August 14, 2006                         |

 

----
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 23.02

                       REPORT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
                        ON FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULE

To the Board of Directors and Stockholders
Homestore.com, Inc.

  Our report on the consolidated financial statements of Homestore.com, Inc.
is included on page 54 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. In connection with
our audits of such financial statements, we have audited the related financial
statement schedule as of December 31, 1997, 1998 and 1999 and for each of the
three years in the period ended December 31, 1999, included as Exhibit 99.02
of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

  In our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above presents
fairly, in all material respects, the information set forth therein when read
in conjunction with the related consolidated financial statements.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Century City, California
January 14, 2000
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jordan Michael PORTER, Defendant-Appellant

No. 15-11123 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 18, 2017

James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Jordan Michael Porter, Pro Se

Before KING, HAYNES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jordan Michael Porter 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). Porter 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 nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.

Our review reveals a clerical error in the judgment. The judgment states that Porter pleaded guilty to Count 1 of the indictment when he pleaded guilty to Count 1 of the superseding information.

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. This matter is REMANDED for the limited purpose of correcting the clerical error in the judgment. *See*Fed. R. Crim. P. 36.

*

 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.
Bobby Ray JONES v. STATE

CR-16-0113

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 28, 2017 Reh. denied May 19, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-18-0000916 07-DEC-2018 07:54 AM
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Verod WOODARD, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-10097 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 28, 2017

James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Preston Lee Jones, Law Office of Preston Jones, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Verod Woodard pleaded guilty to one count of using, carrying, and brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1), and received a sentence of 283 months in prison, to be followed by a three-year term of supervised release. The underlying “crime of violence” was carjacking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2119. On appeal, Woodard contends that the enactment of § 2119 exceeded Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause. In *United States v. Coleman,*78 F.3d 154, 158-59 (5th Cir. 1996), this court rejected a Commerce Clause challenge to the carjacking statute. Woodard concedes that his argument is foreclosed by *Coleman,*although he contends that the holding has been called into question by the Supreme Court’s decision in *Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius,*567 U.S. 519, 132 S.Ct. 2566, 183 L.Ed.2d 450 (2012). As that case did not address the constitutionality of § 2119, we are bound by our decision in *Coleman. See United States v. Alcantar,*733 F.3d 143, 146 (5th Cir. 2013).

In addition, Woodard asserts that the firearm conviction was invalid because car*288jacking no longer qualifies as a “crime of violence” in light of *Johnson v. United States,*— U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015). As he concedes, his argument that the ruling in *Johnson*renders § 924(c)(3)(B) unconstitutionally vague is foreclosed by our decision in *United States v. Gonzalez-Longoria,*831 F.3d 670 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc), *petition for cert. filed*(Sept. 29, 2016) (No. 16-6259). *See United States v. Jones,*854 F.3d 737, 740 (5th Cir. 2017), *petition for cert. filed*(July 17, 2017) (No. 17-5285). Although in *Lynch v. Dimaya,*— U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 31, 195 L.Ed.2d 902 (2016), the Supreme Court granted certiorari on the question whether 18 U.S.C. § 16(b) is unconstitutional in light of *Johnson,*we are bound by our own precedent unless and until that precedent is altered by a decision of the Supreme Court. *See Wicker v. McCotter,*798 F.2d 155, 157-58 (5th Cir. 1986).

Accordingly, Woodard’s unopposed motion for summary disposition is GRANTED. 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.
#### Noel A. DALE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TWC ADMINISTRATION LLC, a/k/a Time Warner Cable, Defendant-Appellee and Time Warner Cable, Defendant.

No. 16-2258

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 25, 2017

Decided: April 27, 2017

Noel A. Dale, Appellant Pro Se. Shalan-na Lee Pirtle, Stacy Kaplan Wood, PARKER, POE, ADAMS & BERNSTEIN, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Ap-pellee.

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*241PER CURIAM:

Noel A. Dale appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his complaint brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e—2000e-17 (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Dale v. TWC*Admin., *LLC,*No. 5:14-cv-00169-FL, 2016 WL 5338532 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 23, 2016). 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*
#### The State v. Drorsky et al.

1. Appeal: record: error must be affirmatively shown. Appeal from an order overruling a motion. The abstract contained evidence showing that the motion should have been granted, but did not state that it contained *all*the evidence on which the motion was heard. *Held,*in support of the ruling appealed from, that it must be presumed that there was other evidence justifying the ruling.

*Appeal from, Johnson District Court.*

Friday, December 16.

*Bemley & Bemley,*for appellant.

*Bool*c6 *Jackson,*for appellees.

Reed, J.

At the January term, 1887, of the district court, the plaintiff tiled a motion to correct an entry made by the clerk in vacation. Prior to January 1st, the cause was pending in the circuit court, and was transferred to the district court at that date by operation of the statute abolishing the circuit court. (Chapter 134, Acts Twenty-first General Assembly.) The entry in question purports to be a final judgment in the case, and it was made up by the clerk from the memorandum made in the case by the judge of the circuit court at the October term, 1886, of that court. The motion was upon the grounds that the cause had never been finally submitted to the court, and that the memorandum of the judge from which the clerk made up the record related *485to an application for a temporary injunction which had been submitted to him in vacation. The motion was overruled, and the appeal is from that order.

The motion was supported by the affidavit of the attorney who appeared for the plaintiff in the court below, and his testimony tended strongly to establish the allegations of fact in the motion. The motion and affidavit are set out in the abstract on which the case was submitted; but it is not averred therein that the affidavit is all of the evidence introduced upon the hearing. It would have been competent for the court to hear other testimony on the question, and, in the absence of any showing to the contrary, we must presume that there was other evidence, and that the finding of fact implied by the order overruling the motion is sustained by the evidence. Affirmed.
**Exhibit 99.7**

 

 

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED CHARTEREDACCOUNTANTS**

 

 

We consent to the incorporation by referencein the Registration Statement No. 333-178635 on Form F-10, Nos. 333-175265, 333-155538 and 333-113073 on Form S-8, and No. 333-159215on Form F-3 and to the use of our reports dated March 9, 2012 relating to the consolidated financial statements of BrookfieldOffice Properties Inc., formerly Brookfield Properties Corporation, and subsidiaries (the “Company”) and the effectivenessof the Company’s internal control over financial reporting appearing in this Annual Report on Form 40-F of the Company forthe year ended December 31, 2011.

 

*/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP*

 

Independent Registered Chartered Accountants
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-22-00115-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF N.R., A CHILD §

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 360th District Court

of Tarrant County (360-699434-21)

September 16, 2022

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed. 

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Dana Womack

 Justice Dana Womack
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 99.02

                                  CERTIFICATION
           PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
             (CHAPTER 63, TITLE 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350(A) AND (B))

      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Chapter 63,
Title 18 U.S.C. Section 1350(a) and (b)), each of the undersigned hereby
certifies in his capacity as an officer of Homestore, Inc. (the "Company") that
the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company at the end of and for the periods covered by such
Report.

Dated: March 25, 2003

                                                   /s/ W. Michael Long
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                   W. Michael Long
                                                   Chief Executive Officer

                                                   /s/ Lewis R. Belote, III
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                   Lewis R. Belote, III
                                                   Chief Financial Officer


      The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Chapter 63, Title 18 U.S.C. Section
1350(a) and (b)), is not deemed to be filed as a part of the Form 10-K to which
it refers and is, to the extent permitted by law, provided by each of the above
signatories to the extent of his knowledge. 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.