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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER>                                      1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,791
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  366,998
<ALLOWANCES>                                    74,853
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          15,786
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,029
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 336,455
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,495
<OTHER-SE>                                     217,724
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   336,455
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                55,203
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,760
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,072
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                57,555
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,610
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (15,794)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (5,865)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (9,929)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,929)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.35)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.35)
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan ZEPEDA-MORALES, Defendant-Appellant

No. 15-41644 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 25, 2017

.Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellant

*380Juan Zepeda-Morales, Pro Se

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Juan Zepeda-Morales has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed briefs 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). Zepe-da-Morales has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s briefs 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 published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22

- 1293

LAMAR IRONHORSE , Plaintiff

- Appellant , and A.I., a minor child , Plaintiff ,

v. TERRY B. STOMEL, Individually; ADLER AND STOMEL, a Public Corporation , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Wilmington

. James C. Dever III , District Judge. ( 7:21

- cv - 00027

- D )

Submitted : September 8, 2022 Decided: September 12, 2022

Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1293 Doc: 21 Filed: 09/12/2022 Pg: 1 of 32 Lamar IronHorse , Appellant Pro Se. John Thomas Crook , BAILEY & DIXON , Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee s
.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1293 Doc: 21 Filed: 09/12/2022 Pg: 2 of 33 PER CURIAM:
Lamar Ironhorse appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissing his complaint without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction
and for failure to state a claim , as well as numerous nondispositive orders . We have
reviewed the r ecord and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. Ironhorse v.
Stomel , No. 7:21

- cv - 00027

- D (E.D.N.C. Mar. 3, 2021; June 11, 2021; July 1, 2021; Sept. 16, 2021; Jan. 19, 2022; Feb. 17, 2022). 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 dec isional process.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 22-1293 Doc: 21 Filed: 09/12/2022 Pg: 3 of 3
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         18,644
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  25,648
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    180,143
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               245,543
<PP&E>                                         134,579
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (22,901)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 416,493
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          552,583
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    1,211
<COMMON>                                       1,115
<OTHER-SE>                                     (138,416)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   416,493
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               963,790
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (963,790)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (963,790)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.09)



</TABLE>
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**





The
      undersigned, Peter Mateja, Chief Executive Officer, of Smart Energy Solutions,
      Inc. (the “Company”) and Edward Braniff, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
      certify, under the standards set forth and solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C.
      1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that, to their knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A of the Company
      for
      the year ended December 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained
      in that Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated:
      April 11, 2007





/s/
      Peter
      Mateja





Peter
      Mateja


Chief
      Executive Officer and Director


(Principal
      Executive Officer)





/s/
      Edward Braniff





Edward
      Braniff


Chief
      Financial Officer


(Principal
      Financial Officer)





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.
Table of Contents

Exhibit 32.1

iDNA, INC.CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934AND 18 U.S.C. (SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

I, James J. McNamara, Chief Executive Officer of iDNA, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the ‘‘Registrant’’), in connection with the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’), do hereby represent, warrant and certify, in compliance with Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C Sections 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

(1)    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

|                                                                                                                                               |  |  |        |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|--|--------|
| /s/ James J. McNamara                     |  |  |   |
| Name: James J. McNamaraTitle: Chief Executive Officer(principal executive officer)                                                            |  |  |   |
| Date: September 18, 2007                                                                                                                 |  |  |   |

A signed original of this written statement required by 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 iDNA, Inc. and will be retained by iDNA, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

42

----
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular

cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal

profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-30137

Summary Calendar

__________________

ANTONINO F. ANZALONE,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

and

RON S. MACALUSO of Seale, Macaluso,

Daigle & Ross,

 Intervenor-Plaintiff,

versus

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY,

 Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 93-CV-2248

- - - - - - - - - -

November 28, 1995

Before JOHNSON, JOLLY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Antonino F. Anzalone appeals the jury's verdict in favor of

defendant Allstate Insurance Company regarding suit brought 

pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 

§§ 12101-12213. Anzalone maintains that the district court made

erroneous evidentiary rulings and that the evidence was

insufficient to support the jury's verdict. Because review of

the briefs and the record reveals no reversible error, we AFFIRM.

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit31.2**

 

 

**Certificationof Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) under theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.**

 

I, Reid Simpson, certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewedthis annual report on Form 10-K of eCollege.com;

 

2.               Based on my knowledge,this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.               Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.               The registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a)              designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b)             evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

c)              disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.               The registrant’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a)              ll significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

b)             any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date: March 31, 2005 

 
| /s/  REID SIMPSON   |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|
| Reid Simpson                  |   |
| Chief Financial Officer       |   |
| (principal financial officer) |   |

 

----
#### Melinda Gabriella VALENZUELA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Arlene MCKAMEY, Nurse Practitioner; Eliza Homer, Assistant Facility Health Administrator at Corizon—Eyman, Defendants-Appellees*.*

No. 16-16492

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 11, 2017 *

Filed July 18, 2017

Melinda Gabriélla Valenzuela, Pro Se

Joseph Scott Conlon, Renaud Cook Dru-ry Mesaros, PA, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Arizona state prisoner Melinda Gabriella Valenzuela appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to her serious medical needs.. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Colwell v. Bannister,*763 F.3d 1060, 1065 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.

*511The district court properly granted summary judgment because Valenzuela failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Homer and McKamey were deliberately indifferent to Valenzuela’s bladder condition. *See id.*at 1066-68 (an official is “deliberately indifferent” if she “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health and safety”; a difference of opinion between a physician and the prisoner concerning what medical care is appropriate does not amount to deliberate indifference (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

Valenzuela’s motions to supplement the record (Docket Entry Nos. 5, 10, 20) are granted. However, to the extent that the documents have not been filed in the district court, we do not consider them. *See United States v. Elias,*921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3'.
**SPAR Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries**

 

EXHIBIT 32.1

**Certification of the Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the nine-month period ended September 30, 2009 (this “report”), of SPAR Group, Inc. (the “registrant”), the undersigned hereby certifies that, to his knowledge:

1.         The report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and

2.         The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.

 

|   | /s/ Gary S. RaymondGary S. RaymondPresident and Chief Executive OfficerNovember 16, 2009 |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

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

 

Ex-3

 

----
AAM-12-281-E April 3, 2012

Exemption No. 10496 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2012-0319

Ms. Connie S. Pyatt

Vice President SKY Helicopters, Inc. 2559 South Jupiter Road Garland, TX 75041

Dear Ms. Pyatt:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated March 16, 2012, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of SKY Helicopters, Inc. (SKY Helicopt ers), for an exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would allow SKY Helicopters, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one drug and alcohol testing program.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to SKY Helicopters.

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two testing programs into one would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs.2

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703;

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 also apply to the situation you present; and

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby grant SKY Helicopters, Inc., an exemption from 14 CFR part 120 to the extent necessary to allow SKY Helicopters, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program, subject to the conditions and limitations described below.

Conditions and Limitations

1. Employees of SKY Helicopters are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of the SKY Helicopters part 135 operation, not under part 91.

This exemption terminates on April 30, 2014, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

James R. Fraser, M.D. Deputy Federal Air Surgeon

Enclosure
EX-10.3



 Exhibit 10.3 
 Acceptance Agreement between Shandong Xiangrui and Agriculture Development Bank of China, Dongping Branch, dated February 3, 2012, for a RMB 20 million loan 

Main contents: 
  

	 ̈	Contract No.: 37092300-2012-00001 

  

	 ̈	Accept Items: a Draft of RMB 20,000,000 Yuan 

  

	 ̈	Payee of the Draft: Shandong Runyin Bio-chemical 

  

	 ̈	Draw Date of the Draft: February 3, 2012 

  

	 ̈	Due Date of the Draft: August 3, 2012 

  

	 ̈	The accept applicator should deposit the amount of the draft 10 days before the due date of the draft. The acceptor is entitled to take the money as draft amount
directly for acceptance 1 day before the due date of the draft. 

  

	 ̈	Guarantee Deposit: 

  

	 ̈	Account of guarantee deposit: 20337092300100000078821 

  

	 ̈	Amount of the guarantee deposit: 50% of the draft amount 

  

	 ̈	If the accept applicator has not pay the guarantee deposit as request, the accept applicator shall pay the money as 100% of the draft amount to the acceptor as penalty.


  

	 ̈	Service Fee: 0.05% of the draft amount 

  

	 ̈	Guarantee Method: Guarantee Contract (Ref. 37092300-2012 Nian Dong Ping (Bao) Zi No. 0012/0013/0014) 


Headlines of the articles omitted 
  

	 ̈	Assumption of the Acceptance 

  

	 ̈	Commitment of the Accept Application 

  

	 ̈	Effectiveness, Alteration and Termination 

  

	 ̈	Liabilities of Breach of Contract 

  

	 ̈	Dispute settlement 

  

	 ̈	Miscellaneous 

  

	 ̈	Effectiveness 

  

	 ̈	Attention
Exhibit 32.1

                      Pacific WebWorks, Inc.

                 CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT
    Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
                      18 U.S.C. Section 1350

We, the undersigned officers of Pacific WebWorks, Inc. certify, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

..    the annual report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended
     December 31, 2003, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
     or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

..    the information contained in the Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all
     material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
     the Company.


Date:   March 18, 2004               /s/ Kenneth W. Bell
                                     ____________________________________
                                     Kenneth W. Bell
                                     Chief Executive Officer



Date:  March 18, 2004                /s/ Thomas R. Eldredge
                                     ____________________________________
                                     Thomas R. Eldredge
                                     Chief Financial Officer