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>                                                    DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                                       JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                                         JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                                                    19,080
<SECURITIES>                                                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                             21,561
<ALLOWANCES>                                                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                          44,784
<PP&E>                                                                    20,962
<DEPRECIATION>                                                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                            78,490
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                     20,267
<BONDS>                                                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                          0
<PREFERRED>                                                                    0
<COMMON>                                                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                              78,490
<SALES>                                                                   35,675
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                          35,675
<CGS>                                                                     15,598
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                             15,598
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                          37,493
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                          (589)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                          (16,827)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                                  (1)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                      (16,826)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                           17,626
<CHANGES>                                                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                                                 800
<EPS-BASIC>                                                                 0.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                               0.07



</TABLE>
#### Julio VALLEJO, AKA Juan Vallejo, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. AZTECA ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION INCORPORATED; et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 16-15340

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted August 9, 2017 *

Filed August 16, 2017

Isaac P. Hernandez, Hernandez Law Firm, PLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee

Azteca Electrical Construction Incorporated, Pro Se

Carlos Valencia Yado, Pro Se

Patricia Yado, Pro Se

Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. 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 ***

Defendants Carlos Valencia Yado, Patricia Yado, and Azteca Electrical Construc*341tion Incorporated (“Azteca”), appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment in favor of Julio Vallejo awarding damages in Vallejo’s action against them to recover unpaid wages under federal and state law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, We review for an abuse of discretion a damages award. *Velarde v. PACE Membership Warehouse, Inc.,*105 F.3d 1313, 1318 (9th Cir. 1997). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding double damages because there was no basis for failing to pay Vallejo’s wages. *See Sanborn v. Brooker & Wake Prop. Mgmt., Inc.,*178 Ariz. 425, 874 P.2d 982, 984-86 (1994) (explaining that treble damages are allowed for unpaid wages under Arizona law and that “[withholding wages is forbidden unless there is a reasonable good faith dispute as to the amount of wages owed” (citation, brackets, and internal quotation marks omitted)). We reject as meritless the Yados’ contentions that the in pari delicto or unclean hands defenses barred recovery.

We reject as unsupported by the record the Yados’ contentions that the district court failed to enter exhibits or acted improperly regarding objections during trial.

We do not consider documents that were not presented to the district court, or matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. *See Barcamerica Int’l USA Trust v. Tyfield Importers, Inc.,*289 F.3d 589, 594-95 (9th Cir. 2002); *see also Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

We dismiss Azteca’s appeal because no attorney has entered an appearance in this court on behalf of Azteca, and Carlos Yado, a non-attorney, may not represent Azteca. *See D-Beam Ltd. P’ship v. Roller Derby Skates, Inc.,*366 F.3d 972, 973-74 (9th Cir. 2004) (“[Corporations and other unincorporated associations must appear in court through an attorney.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); *C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States,*818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Although a non-attorney may appear in propria persona in his own behalf, that privilege is personal to him. He has no authority to appear as an attorney for others than himself.” (citation omitted)).

Azteca’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket Entry Nos. 3, 12, 14) are denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 23

- 20448

**____________ Petrobras America, Incorporated,** 
Plaintiff

— Appellant/Cross

- Appellee **,**

versus
**Samsung Heavy Industries Company, Limited,**
Defendant

— Appellee/Cross

- Appellant

**.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:19

- CV

- 1410

**______________________________** Before **Jones ,**  **Smith ,**  and **Ho ,**  Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *****

We have carefully considered this appeal in light of the briefs , the record , and oral argument . Having done so we find no error that would affect the judgment of the district court. We therefore affirm essentially for the reasons stated in the district court’s opinion.

**_____________________**

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir**

**. R** 

**.** 47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 7, 2024 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 23-20448 Document: 132-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/07/2024
Devany. Dennis (OST) From: PSG41 @aol.com Sunday, February 14, 20102:01 PM To:· }**S~nt:_** . Devany, Dennis (OST) Cc:

. Swanson, Brian (OST) Subi_e.ct: CAPE**A'R-PLAnS~I,JRGI:f**

.. , . '" Atravesfyin:goodjudgementhas been made by the Clinton County Board of Legislators in voting out Cape Air in favor ofColgan, and can be corrected by your office exercising the needs ofall those travelers that have used our airportdue to the greatservice and pricing that ourgrowing airport has provided. Bigger is not better. Service and pricing are the magnet that has created such a great Boston to Plattsburgh connection, one that has a greatsafety record, and one that has HELD the prices reasonable and constant. Halfempty Colgan flights are costly to the taxpayers with their larger capacity planes. Subsidies are costly. Fewer flights with higher costs are going to chase the future fliers to Burlington orAlbany

.

.Plattsburgh does notwant to lose this Boston connection to a carrier that has not been locked in to a price range or limit, while Cape Air has put in writing whattheir price is, and also a far better schedule withmore weekly flights than Colgan

.. Do what isright and not accept the suggestion ofa Board that allowed the voting order to be rigged atthe last minute, for whatever promises they might have made. Philip 

### J. Gordon 119 Prospect Avenue Plattsburgh, NY, 12901 518 561-3383

1
#### Thos. Watts, Rec’r, Resp’t, v. Franklin A. Wilcox *et al.,*App'lts.

*Wm. F. O'Neill,*for resp’t; *Henry Bacon,*for app'lts.

Order affirmed, with costs. All concur, except Finch, J., absent.

Affirming 87 N. Y. State Rep., 194.
Exhibit
32.3














CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


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


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I,
Anthony J. Branca, Chief Financial Officer of ICON Capital Corp., the Manager of
the Registrant, in connection with the Annual Report of ICON Leasing Fund
Twelve, LLC (the “LLC”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the “Annual Report”) certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:





1.
            The
      Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the LLC.





Date:
March 30, 2009





/s/Anthony J.
Branca__


Anthony
J. Branca


Chief
Financial Officer


ICON
Capital Corp.


Manager
of ICON Leasing Fund Twelve, LLC
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           4,842
<SECURITIES>                                    33,105
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,818
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                57,305
<PP&E>                                          12,278
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,382
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  70,771
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,876
<BONDS>                                            593
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            58
<OTHER-SE>                                      64,073
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    70,771
<SALES>                                         27,564
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                27,564
<CGS>                                            8,362
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,362
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,553
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  42
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,803
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,288
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,515
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,515
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.59
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.59
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, David K. Spohr, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Futures Strategic Trust for the period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                   |  |                                                                                                                                                                                   
|------------------ |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ David K. Spohr
|Name:              |  | David K. Spohr                                                                                                                                                                    
|Title:             |  | Senior Vice President and Director of Fund Administration (Principal Financial/Accounting Officer) Preferred Investment Solutions
Corp., Managing Owner of Futures Strategic
Trust
|                  
|Date: May 14, 2007
#### IN RE: MODERN WOODMEN OF AMERICA, Appellant

2016-2306

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 10, 2017

Thomas Joseph Moore, Bacon & Thomas, Alexandria, YA, argued for appellant. Also represented by Thomas Lee.

Thomas L. Casagrande, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for appellee Michelle K. Lee. Also represented by Nathan K. Kelley, Thomas W. Krause, Christina Hieber, Mai-Trang Due Dang.

(Wallach, Clevenger, and Schall, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Travis Edward FISCHER, AKA Edward Travis Fischer, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-30153

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted October 6, 2017 Seattle, Washington

Filed October 24, 2017

*692Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Benjamin Diggs, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Michael William Dion, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Dennis Carroll, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Corey Endo, Attorney, FPDWA—Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Washington, Seattle, WA, Andrew David Kennedy, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Western District of Washington, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Travis Edward Fischer appeals from his convictions on three counts of theft of public funds under 18 U.S.C. § 641 on the ground that the district court improperly commented on the evidence. As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

To the extent the district court erred by including the chart in Instruction 20, such error is harmless because there is “no reasonable possibility that the error materially affected the verdict.” *United States v. Rubio-Villareal,*967 F.2d 294, 296 n.3 (9th Cir. 1992) (en banc). As to Counts 9 and 10, both Cabrini Morris and Annaliza Torres testified that Defendant’s Queen Anne apartment was subsidized by HUD. As to Count 14, Renee Pelletier and Linda Peterson testified that the food stamps were funded by the federal government. Fischer presented no evidence contesting that testimony. In light of this evidence, there is no reasonable possibility that the exclusion of the chart would have altered the jury’s verdict.

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 99.4 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Gregory McCunn, Chief Financial Officer of Asanko Gold Inc. (the Company), hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:  (i) the Annual Report on Form 40-F of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2014 (the Annual Report), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and  (ii) the information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date: March 16, 2015/s/ Gregory McCunnGregory McCunnChief Financial Officer(principal financial officer)
MASSENA EAST DOWNCOMER TEST POTROOM FLOW RATES (dscf/min)

Line 1 Run 1 Line 1 Run 2 Line 1 Run 3 Metals 4/30 Metals 4/30Metals 5/1 3965024 3601902 3550762 Line 1 Run 1 Line 1 Run 2 Line 1 Run 3 HexCr 4/30 HexCr 4/30 HexCr 5/1 3968169 3584106 3552880 Line 3 Run 1 Line 3 Run 2 Line 3 Run 3 DF 4/30 DF 4/30 DF 5/1 3837511 3648875 4143142
|   | (a) | Amendment      No. 2 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,      2009 of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)      or 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;  and |
|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (b) | Information      contained in Amendment No. 2 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of      operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:      July 8, 2010     |
|------------------------------|
|                         |
| /s/ Gary Guseinov            |
| Gary      Guseinov           |
| Chief      Executive Officer |
|                         |
| /s/ Kevin Harris             |
| Kevin      Harris            |
| Chief      Financial Officer |

----
Filed June 25, 1891.

#### In the Matter of the Accounting of Abraham B. Valentine, Trustee.

*Thos. M. Wheeler,*for app’lt; *Israel Minor, Jr.,*for resp’t.

*1013Order and judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur, except Finch, J., absent.

Affirming 38 N. Y. State Rep., 333.
ex10-18.htm




Exhibit 10.18

















 




  





1











  









 




  





2











  









 




  





3











  






 







  





4











  









 



5
ex10-1.htm


EXHIBIT 10.1


 


AMENDMENT NO. 4


 


TO THE ACCELERIZE NEW MEDIA, INC.


 


STOCK OPTION PLAN


 


------------------------------------------------


 


As adopted by resolution of the


 


Board of Directors on May 24, 2012


 


------------------------------------------------


 







1.           Section 3 of the Accelerize New Media, Inc. Stock Option Plan is hereby amended by deleting the number "2,000,000" and inserting the number "4,000,000" in its stead, wherever the same appears.







2.           Except as hereinabove amended, the provisions of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Martin TERAN, a/k/a El Chapin, a/k/a Daniel R. Rodriguez, a/k/a David L. Morales Garcia, a/k/a Hugo Roland Gomez, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6120

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 27, 2017

Decided: July 6, 2017

Martin Teran, Appellant Pro Se. Julius Ness Richardson, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Martin Teran seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) proceeding.* The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012); *Reid v. Angelone,*369 F.3d 363, 369-70 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. *730322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Teran has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED*

*

The district court entered judgment denying Teran’s § 2255 motion on June 15, 2015. By motion deposited in the prison's mail system on May 6, 2016, at the earliest, Teran sought relief from that judgment under Fed. R.Civ. P, 60(b). The court denied the Rule 60(b) motion on December 27, 2016. Teran noted his appeal on January 30, 2017. Because Ter-an did not file the Rule 60(b) motion within 28 days of the court’s final order, the motion did not toll the time for filing a notice of appeal from a final judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A). Thus, Teran's notice of appeal applies only to the December 27, 2016, order denying his Rule 60(b) motion and related Fed. R, Civ. P. 59(e) motion, and his challenges to the June 15, 2015, order are not subject to review.