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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              FEB-29-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   AUG-31-1999
<CASH>                                         1,299
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  12,338
<ALLOWANCES>                                   930
<INVENTORY>                                    56,771
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         16,786
<DEPRECIATION>                                 7,745
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 133,826
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       23,992
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   133,826
<SALES>                                        7,812
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               83,291
<CGS>                                          4,733
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  76,667
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             2,419
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                4,146
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1,689
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            2,457
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   2,457
<EPS-BASIC>                                  .51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .51


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan Antonio LINARES-BRICENO, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-50392 c/w No. 16-50402 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 25, 2017

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

Judy Fulmer Madewell, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Maureen Scott Franco, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellee

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Juan Antonio Linares-Briceno appeals the revocation of his supervised release and his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry. He challenges the district court’s application of the crime-of-violence enhancement in U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) (2014) based on his prior Texas conviction for burglary of a habitation. *See*Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 30.02, By failing to raise any specific error in the revocation or revocation sentence, he has abandoned any challenge to the revocation proceeding. *See United States v. Solano-Hernandez,*847 F.3d 170, 174 n.2 (5th Cir. 2017). He argues that § 30.02(a) is not divisible and, in the alternative, that the Government failed to show that he was convicted of a crime of violence because the judgment references § 30.01(a)(1) while the indictment tracks the language of § 30.02(a)(3), which this court has held is not a crime of violence.

Section 30.02(a) of the Texas Penal Code is divisible, and a violation of § 30.02(a)(1) constitutes generic burglary of a dwelling. *United States v. Uribe,*838 F.3d 667, 670-71 (5th Cir. 2016), *cert. denied,*2017 WL 661924, - U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 1359, 197 L.Ed.2d 542 (2017); *see*§ 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) & comment. (n.1(B)(iii)) (2015). Linares-Briceno has not established that a conflict renders the judgment unreliable for purposes of determining which subsection of § 30.02(a) formed the basis for the conviction. *See Solano-Hernandez,*847 F.3d at 177. Furthermore, his argument that the indictment created a conflict assumes that the indictment may be used to narrow the statute of conviction. The judgment indicates, however, that Linares-Briceno was not convicted of burglary as charged in the indictment. *See United States v. Bonilla,*524 F.3d 647, 652 (5th Cir. 2008). In light of the foregoing, he has failed to show that the district court erred, plainly or otherwise, by applying the crime-of-violence enhancement. *See Uribe,*838 F.3d at 671.

The judgments of the district court are AFFIRMED.

*

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



EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

In connection with the periodic report of Connetics Corporation (the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, John L. Higgins, Chief Financial
Officer, Executive Vice President, Finance and Corporate Development 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: August 13, 2003                                                                                                   
|                                                                                                                        
|/s/ John L. Higgins

John L. Higgins Executive Vice President, Finance and Corporate Development
Chief Financial Officer
#### Nathaniel C. Allen *versus*James H. Megguire and Trustee.

A mere creditor, happening to have in his hands specific articles belonging to his debtor, has no lien upon them: he must attach them, as other creditors, for his debt; or he may be charged, as trustee of his debtor, on account of them.

Israel Smith, the person summoned as trustee of the defendant, disclosed that, at the time of the service of the process upon him, he was possessed of sundry articles of personal property belonging to the defendant, which he was ready to give up, whenever the balance due him on account, which he stated to be 82 dollars 24 cents, should be paid him. He acknowledged that the articles were not left with him as a pledge for security of the said balance ; but said he considered himself entitled to retain them until the balance was paid ; and that he intended so to retain them.

*Curia.*

A factor, or other person in whom confidence is reposed, has a right to retain, having a lien for commissions and advances. But a mere creditor, happening to have in his possession specific articles belonging to his debtor, has no lien upon them. (1) He must attach, as other creditors, if he would avail himself of them. If, however, the specific articles which he has in his possession might be come at to be attached, the trustee process is not the proper remedy ; for that will lie only where the goods, &c., cannot be come at, to be attached by the ordinary process of law.

In the case before us, however, the trustee declaring that he claims the goods as his own, in consequence of a supposed lien for the debt, and not disclosing any thing from which it might be inferred that he exposed them to attachment, he may be considered as the trustee, and may expose the goods on execution.

*Fessenden*for the plaintiff.

*Orr*for the trustee.

(1)

 Vide ante, page 414. — *[James*vs. *Rogers.]*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alejandro OROZCO-MADRIGAL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-50120

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 *

Filed September 29, 2017

Nicole Ries Fox, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Doug Keller, Attorney, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Alejandro Orozco-Madrigal appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 51-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for attempted reentry of a removed alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Orozco-Madrigal contends that his prior conviction for assault with a semiautomatic firearm under California Penal Code § 245(b) is not a “crime of violence” for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)(ii) (2014). This argument is foreclosed. *See United States v. Grajeda,*581 F.3d 1186, 1197 (9th Cir. 2009) (violation of section 245 “is categorically a crime of violence” under § 2L1.2). Contrary to Orozco-Ma-drigal’s contention, our decision in *Grajeda*is not “clearly irreconcilable” with either *Descamps v. United States,*570 U.S. 254, 133 S.Ct. 2276, 186 L.Ed.2d 438 (2013), or *Almanza-Arenas v. Lynch,*815 F.3d 469 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). *See Miller v. Gammie,*335 F.3d 889, 900 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.

**

**This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### PEOPLE *v.*TOWAR.

Criminal Law — Automobiles—Speed Limit.

The statutory 65 miles per hour speed limit on State trunk line highways, except freeways, is an unqualified maximum speed limit and not a prima facie speed limit (CLS 1961, § 257.628, as amended by PA 1963, No 143).

Beference for Points in Headnote

7 Am Jur 2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic § § 180, 186, 193, 326,

Appeal from Ingham; Hughes (Sam Street), J.

Submitted Division 2 May 8, 1968, at Lansing,

(Docket No. 4,503.)

Decided May 31, 1968.

Rehearing denied July 8, 1968.

David Robert Towar was convicted of driving in violation of the 65 miles per hour speed limit on a State trunk line highway, that was not a freeway.

Affirmed.

*Frank J. Kelley,*Attorney General, *Robert A. Derengoski,*Solicitor General, *Donald L. Reisig,*Prosecuting Attorney, and *James R. Ramsey*and *John A. Shrank,*Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for the people.

*Willingham, Learned, Cote, Spanos & Bartoli,*for defendant.

*576Per Curiam.

This appeal involves the single question : Is the 65 miles per hour limit on a State trunk line highway, that is not a freeway, in CLS 1961, § 257.628, as amended by PA 1963, No 143 (Stat Ann 1968 Cum Supp § 9.2328), a maximum speed limit or a prima facie speed limit?

The trial court held that it was an unqualified maximum, and we affirm.

Lesinski, C. J., and Quinn and Moody, JJ., concurred.
**Exhibit 32(b)**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

OF QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-QSB 

OF PINNACLE DATA SYSTEMS, INC. 

FOR THE QUARTERENDED SEPTEMBER 25, 2004 

 

The undersigned is the Chief Financial Officer ofPinnacle Data Systems, Inc. (the “Issuer”). This Certification is made pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This Certification accompanies the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Issuer for the quarterly periodended September 25, 2004. 

 

I, Michael R. Sayre, certify that the QuarterlyReport on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 25, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that information contained in the Quarterly Report onForm 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer. 

 

This certification is executed as of November 12, 2004.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 656 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to include child development 

and early learning as community services under the Federal work-study 

program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 31, 2023 

Mr. CASTRO of Texas (for himself, Mr. MOOLENAAR, Ms. SPANBERGER, and 

Mr. COLE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to include 

child development and early learning as community services under the Federal work-study program. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Head Start for Our 

5 Future Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND EARLY LEARNING COM7 MUNITY SERVICES. 

8 Section 441(c)(1) of the Higher Education Act of 

9 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087–51(c)(1)) is amended by striking 


pbinns on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 656 IH

1 ‘‘literacy training’’ and inserting ‘‘child development and 

2 early learning (including Head Start programs and Early 

3 Head Start programs carried out under the Head Start 

4 Act (42 U.S.C. 9831 et seq.)), literacy training’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
ex106.htm


Exhibit 10.6


 







 


EXECUTIVE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


     This amended Executive Employment Agreement (the “Amended Agreement”) is effective as of May 16, 2012 (the “Effective Date”) and is between Vidaroo Corp, a Nevada Corp. (the “Company”) and Micheal Morgan (the “Officer”).


 


RECITALS:


 


             WHEREAS, the Company and Officer originally entered into an employment agreement (the “Agreement”) dated August 14, 2009 that was subsequently amended on 11/10/09 and 11/10/10 (the “Amendments”).


 


            WHEREAS, the Officer desires to accept a continued role with the Company.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and mutual agreements herein set forth, the parties hereby re-affirm the Agreement and Amendments.  Company and Officer agree to the following further amendments as follows:


 


1.           Term of Employment. The period of employment of Officer by the Company under the Agreement (the Employment Period) shall be deemed to have commenced on the April 1, 2012 and shall continue until March 31, 2015, unless terminated sooner under Section 6 of the Agreement.


 


 2.           Compensation.


 


(a)           Salary. The Company shall pay to Officer a base salary of $120,000 per year, plus any bonuses and/or stock options as granted under this and previous agreements or those granted from time to time in the sole discretion of the Board of Directors. Should Company wish to provide Salary in the form of Stock, Company and officer, upon mutual agreement, may agree to substitute Common Stock at a conversion price of $0.02/share.


 


(b)           Health Insurance. As additional compensation for the Officer, the Company shall provide or maintain the medical and health insurance benefits on the same terms and conditions as are made available to all employees of the Company generally.


 


(c)           Stock Options. The Company hereby reaffirms previously issued stock Options to Officer and is providing/affirming additional Stock Options all to be provided at an exercise price of $0.05, as further indicated in the table below.


 



	
Historical Award:


 

	  	  
	  	
Date of award

	
Number of shares

	
Status

	  
	  	
8/14/09

	
2,000,000

	
Vested

	  
	  	
11/10/10

	
6,940,005

	
Vested

	  
	
Current contractual award:

	  	  
	  	
5/16/12

	
2,000,000

	
Vested

	  
	  	
5/16/12

	
1,500,000

	
Vests ratably over contract period

	  





 


Upon vesting these Options shall be exercisable at anytime by the Holder as further described in the executed Vidaroo Corporation Non-Statutory Stock Option Agreement.


 





	Vidaroo Corp. 	 	 	Officer:	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:	
/s/Thomas Moreland 

	 	 	
/s/ Micheal Morgan
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Garland Scott JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-10099 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 19, 2017

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

Christopher Allen Curtis, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before KING, DENNIS, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Garland Scott Johnson pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm *280and was sentenced to 78 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. He argues that the district court erred in applying the crime-of-violence enhancement in U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(4)(A) based on his prior Texas conviction for burglary of a habitation.

More specifically, Johnson argues that Texas Penal Code § 30.02(a) is not divisible. We rejected this argument in *United States v. Uribe,*838 F.3d 667, 670-71 (5th Cir. 2016), *cert. denied,*2017 WL 661924, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 1359, 197 L.Ed.2d 542 (Mar. 20, 2017). Johnson also argues that § 30.02(a) does not constitute generic burglary of a dwelling because it encompasses the burglary of certain vehicles and structures appurtenant to said vehicles. We rejected this argument under plain error review in *United States v. Garcia-Mendez,*420 F.3d 454, 456-57 (5th Cir. 2005), and recently followed that holding in analyzing a similar Tennessee statute in *United States v. Castro-Alfonso,*841 F.3d 292, 297-98 (5th Cir. 2016).

The district court did not err in applying the crime-of-violence enhancement because Johnson was convicted of • violating § 30.02(a)(1) by entering the victim’s habitation with the intent to commit theft, which constitutes generic burglary of a dwelling. *See Uribe,*838 F.3d at 671; U.S.S.G. §§ 2K2.1, comment. (n.l), 4B1.2, comment. (n.l) (2015). Moreover, any error was harmless because the district court stated that, even if it incorrectly calculated the guidelines range, it would impose the same sentence based upon its consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, particularly Johnson’s extensive criminal history. *See Castro-Alfonso,*841 F.3d at 298-99.

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 *280published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4,
**Exhibit 32**
 
 **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 MDU Communications International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 28, 2004 (the Report), I, Sheldon Nelson, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to and will be retained by MDU Communications International, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
 
 /s/  SHELDON NELSONSheldon Nelson
*Chief Executive Officer and*
*Chief Financial Officer*
MDU Communications International, Inc.December 28, 2004Totowa, New Jersey
<PAGE>

Exhibit 99.4 - Press Release



PRESS RELEASE
September 22, 1999

                              For further information contact:
                              David M. Bradley
                              President and Chief Executive Officer
                              North Central Bancshares, Inc.
                              825 Central Avenue
                              Fort Dodge, Iowa  50501
                              515-576-7531


           NORTH CENTRAL BANCSHARES, INC. COMPLETES STOCK REPURCHASE

Fort Dodge, Iowa - North Central Bancshares, Inc. (Nasdaq: "FFFD") announced
that it has completed a 5.98% stock repurchase program today. The Company said
it repurchased 150,000 shares of its outstanding common stock, par value $.01
per share, at the aggregate cost of $2,599,088 in open market transactions. The
repurchase program began on September 2, 1999. Upon settlement of the last
transaction on or about September 27, 1999, there will be 2,357,242 shares of
North Central Bancshares, Inc. common stock outstanding.

North Central Bancshares, Inc., with over $343 million in assets, is the holding
company for First Federal Savings Bank of Iowa, a federally chartered stock
savings bank. First Federal is a community-oriented institution serving Iowa
through 8 full service locations in Fort Dodge, Nevada, Ames, Perry, Burlington
and Mt. Pleasant, Iowa. First Federal's deposits are insured by the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation.
#### Alvin M. NAVARRO, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

Nos. 15-70667

15-71796

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 *

OCTOBER 2, 2017

Alvin M. Navarro, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.

Tracie Nicole Jones, Trial, Brendan Paul' Hogan, Esquire, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent,

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

In these consolidated petitions for review, Alvin M, Navarro, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) orders dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal, and denying his motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed- by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo, questions of law. *Mohammed v. Gonzales,*400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). In No. 15-70667, we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review, and in No. 15-71796, we deny the petition for review.

. Navarro’s contention that the BIA did not use the proper standard in making its hardship determination is not supported, where the record shows the BIA conducted a future-oriented analysis. *See Figueroa v. Mukasey,*543 F.3d 487, 497-98 (9th Cir.' 2008) (agency must conduct a “future-oriented analysis” in determining whether “removal *would result*in an exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to qualifying relatives) (emphasis in original). '

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that Navarro failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying *420relative. *See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales,*424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005).

Navarro has waived any challenge to the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen. *See Rizk v. Holder,*629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011) (issues not raised in an opening brief are waived).

IN No. 15-70667; PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

IN No. 15-71796; PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.