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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 2ND QTR. 10Q
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           3,145
<SECURITIES>                                     1,002
<RECEIVABLES>                                      900
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (222)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,935
<PP&E>                                           2,267
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,689)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   5,895
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              469
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        71,649
<OTHER-SE>                                       (150)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     5,895
<SALES>                                             95
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,814
<CGS>                                               16
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,478
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,453
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (985)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (985)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (985)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.04)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.1

                        CERTIFICATIONS UNDER SECTION 302

I, Shimmy Zimels, certify that:

      1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of deltathree, Inc.;


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


      3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial 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(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:


      a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;


      b) [reserved] / [paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238
and 34-47986];


      c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and


      d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and


      5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrant'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 the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
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 management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.


Date: March 30, 2005


/s/ Shimmy Zimels
--------------------------------------
Shimmy Zimels, Chief Executive Officer
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**




**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002, the undersigned officer of ArthroCare Corporation (the “Company”) hereby
      certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:





(i)
            The
                accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the
                three
                and six months ended June 30, 2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with the
                requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of
                the
                Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
                and





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






Dated: August
      1,
      2007


/s/
      Michael Gluk


Michael
      Gluk


Chief
      Financial Officer








A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002 (“Section 906”), or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or
      otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the
      electronic version of the written statement required by Section 906, has been
      provided to ArthroCare Corporation and will be retained by ArthroCare
      Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
      staff
      upon request.
#### Gloria Elizabeth TEJADA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 10-73628

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2017 *

Filed May 30, 2017

Adriana Garrido, Esquire, Maziar Razi, Attorney, Law Offices of Mike Razi, APC, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner

Brooke Maurer, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Gloria Elizabeth Tejada, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her- appeal from an immigration judge’s (“U”) decision denying her application for asylum, and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the petition for review and remand.

As to the timeliness of Tejada’s asylum application, the BIA did not consider Teja-da’s contention based on her inclusion in her mother’s asylum application. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1208.4(a)(5); *Sagaydak v. Gonzales,*405 F.3d 1035, 1040 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[T]he BIA is not free to ignore arguments raised by a petitioner.”).

Further, in denying Tejada’s asylum and withholding of removal claims, the BIA found Tejada failed to establish a nexus to a protected ground. However, when the IJ and BIA issued their decisions in this case, they did not have the benefit of this court’s decisions in *Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder,*707 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc), *Cordoba v. Holder,*726 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2013), *Pirir-Boc v. Holder,*750 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2014), and *Reyes v. Lynch,*842 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2016), or the BIA’s decisions in *Matter of M-E-V-G-,*26 I. *&*N. Dec. 227 (BIA 2014), and *Matter of W-G-R-,*26 I. *&*N. Dec. 208 (BIA 2014).

*469Thus, we remand Tejada’s asylum and withholding of removal claims to determine the impact, if any, of these decisions, and this court’s decision in *Perdomo v. Holder,*611 F.3d 662 (9th Cir. 2010). *See INS v. Ventura,*537 U.S. 12, 16-18, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002) (per curiam). On remand, the BIA should also address Tejada’s contention regarding her reasons for not filing a timely asylum application.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

**

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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6810 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.6810

                     One Hundred Eighteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
         the third day of January, two thousand and twenty-four

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
 518 North Ridgewood Drive in Sebring, Florida, as the ``U.S. Army Air 
          Corps Major Thomas B. McGuire Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. U.S. ARMY AIR CORPS MAJOR THOMAS B. MCGUIRE POST OFFICE 
BUILDING.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 518 North Ridgewood Drive in Sebring, Florida, shall be 
known and designated as the ``U.S. Army Air Corps Major Thomas B. 
McGuire Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``U.S. Army 
Air Corps Major Thomas B. McGuire Post Office Building''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
#### Bowman *v.*Bowman, Appellant.

Argued April 30, 1956.

Before Steen, C. J., Jones, Bell, Chidsey, Musmanno and Abnold, JJ.

*Milton J. Goodman,*for appellant.

*Lewis B. Long,*with him *Philip J. Gahagan,*for appellee.

May 21, 1956:

Opinion

Pee Cubiam,

Plaintiff-wife brought a complaint in equity *to*compel reconveyance of certain real estate which her husband had conveyed to his son (by a former marriage). The lower court found that the deeds,, although dated prior to marriage, were actually executed and delivered after marriage and thus were, in fraud of *295plaintiff’s marital rights. The court’s findings and conclusions were justified by the evidence.

Decree affirmed at appellant’s costs.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**

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

**(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of American Wagering, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended April 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I certify as of the date hereof, solely for the purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, to my knowledge, that:

 

(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.

 

A signed original of this written statement, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement, 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.

 

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

 

 
| Date:  June 14,   2011 |   | /s/   Victor J. Salerno                   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------|
|                                  |   | Victor   J. Salerno                       |
|                                  |   | President,   Chief Executive Officer, and |
|                                  |   | Chairman   of the Board of Directors      |
|                                  |   | (Principal   Executive Officer)           |
|                                  |   |                                      |
| Date:  June 14,   2011 |   | /s/   Robert Kocienski                    |
|                                  |   | Robert   Kocienski                        |
|                                  |   | Chief   Operating Officer, and            |
|                                  |   | Principal   Financial Officer             |
|                                  |   | (Principal   Financial Officer)           |

 

----
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Depomed, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2010 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Carl A. Pelzel, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

(1)  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 
|   | Date:  May 3, 2010                |
|--------|----------------------------------------|
|   |                                   |
|   |                                   |
|   | /s/ Carl A.  Pelzel                    |
|   | Carl A. Pelzel                         |
|   | President and Chief  Executive Officer |

 

----
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of ArthroCare Corporation (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



| | (i) | The accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months ended September 30, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                         |  |                                      
|------------------------ |  | -------------------------------------
|Dated: November 24, 2009 |  | /s/ David Fitzgerald                 
|                         |  | David Fitzgerald                     
|                         |  | President and Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 906), or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of the written statement required by
Section 906, has been provided to ArthroCare Corporation and will be retained by ArthroCare Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
497 A.2d 482

#### STATE of Maryland v. ONE 1977 FORD.

No. 80,

Sept. Term, 1985.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Sept. 13, 1985.

Before MURPHY, C.J., and SMITH, ELDRIDGE, COLE, RODOWSKY, COUCH and McAULIFFE, JJ.

*44ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The Court having considered and granted the petition for writ of certiorari, in the above entitled case, it is this 13th day of September, 1985

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals be, and it is hereby, vacated and the case remanded to that Court for reconsideration, mandate to issue forthwith with costs to be paid by the appellee.
#### Anthony MOORE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Louis WINN, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 14-16169

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted September 11, 2017 San Francisco, California

Filed October 2, 2017

Christopher Michael Rusby, Attorney, Rusby Law, PLLC, Reno, NV, for Petitioner-Appellant

Katherine Vail Foss, USTU-Office of the US Attorney, Tucson, AZ, for Respondent-Appellee

Before: KOZINSKI and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and BENNETT,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa; sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Anthony Moore, a prisoner convicted in state court but housed in federal prison, appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing' his *pro se*petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.1

*486The district court erred in holding that it lacked jurisdiction on the basis that Moore could not properly challenge the conditions of his confinement through a habeas petition. Under *Hernandez v. Campbell,*204 F.3d 861, 864 (9th Cir. 2000), the court could review'Moore’s petition because it contests the “manner, location, or conditions of [his] sentence’s execution.” *See also Harrison v. Ollison,*519 F.3d 952, 956 (9th Cir. 2008). This court’s decision in *Nettles v.*Grounds—which restricts the scope of habeas jurisdiction for *state*prisoners—is not to the contrary. *See*830 F.3d 922, 931 (9th Cir. 2016) (noting that the court “need not address how the standard ... adopted here applies to relief sought by prisoners in federal custody”).

On remand the court must consider whether Moore’s claim is foreclosed by 18 U.S.C. § 3625, which this court has held precludes judicial review of “discretionary determinations” made by the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) under 18 U.S.C. § 3621. *Compare Reeb v. Thomas,*636 F.3d 1224, 1227 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that-the district court lacked jurisdiction over habeas challenge to BOP’s individualized placement determination), *with Rodriguez v. Copenhaver,*823 F.3d 1238, 1242 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding that 18 U.S.C. § 3625 does not preclude claims that the BOP “acted contrary to established federal law, violated the Constitution, or exceeded its statutory authority when it acted pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3621”).

VACATED and REMANDED.

**

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

1

. We assume without deciding that Moore’s challenge was properly brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, based on the understanding from oral argument that Moore is challenging the federal Bureau of Prison’s classification system.
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-22-00275-CV

IN RE: THE COMMITMENT OF JEFFREY 

PARKINSON

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 158th District 

Court

of Denton County (21-6836-158)

April 6, 2023

Memorandum Opinion by Justice 

Bassel

JUDGMENT

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

was no error in the trial court’s civil commitment order. It is ordered that the order

of the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Dabney Bassel

 Justice Dabney Bassel
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-4275

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RONALD EDWARD CRAWFORD, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge. (CR-99-335) Submitted: August 30, 2000 Decided: September 7, 2000 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, William C. Ingram,First Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Walter C. Holton, Jr., United States Attorney, L. Patrick Auld, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Ronald Crawford appeals the forty-six month imprisonment sentence imposed by the district court following his plea of guilty to bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113(a) (West Supp.2000). Crawford contends that the district court erred in enhancing his offense level pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2B3.1(b)(2)(F) (Nov. 1998) for making a “threat of death.” We find that, given the tense atmosphere of a bank robbery, Crawford’s handing the teller a note on which he wrote that he had a “gun ” (emphasis in original), is sufficient to support enhancement under USSG § 2B3.1(b)(2)(F). See e.g. United States v. Burns , 160 F.3d 82, 84 (1st Cir. 1998). The judgment of the district court is affirmed. 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.

AFFIRMED