alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Certification of Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to


Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Blink Couture, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending July 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Lawrence D. Field, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





1)
The Report 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.




Date: October 27, 2011
/s/ Lawrence D. FieldLawrence D. FieldPrincipal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer
# EUR-Lex - 32000Y1222(01) - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32000Y1222(01)

**Commission communication pursuant to Article 4(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 - Modification by the United Kingdom of public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services between the Orkney Mainland (Kirkwall) and the islands of Papa Westray and North Ronaldsay (Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal C 369 , 22/12/2000 P. 0002 - 0002 *

Commission communication pursuant to Article 4(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92

Modification by the United Kingdom of public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services between the Orkney Mainland (Kirkwall) and the islands of Papa Westray and North Ronaldsay

(2000/C 369/02)

(Text with EEA relevance)

1. The United Kingdom has decided to modify the public service obligations in respect of the scheduled air services between the Orkney Mainland (Kirkwall) and the islands of Papa Westray and North Ronaldsay as set out in the notice published in the Official Journal of the European Communities C 394 of 30 December 1997 pursuant to Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes.

2. The modified public service obligations are as follows:

- Minimum frequencies:

- Two return trips per day except Sundays on each route.

- Capacity:

- The capacity of the aircraft should be not less than eight seats on each route.

- Fares:

- The price of a single adult fare must not exceed GBP 15 on each route.

The maximum fare on the routes may be increased once every year in line with the United Kingdom's retail price index (all items) or any successor index to this.

No other changes may be made to the fare levels without the prior written consent of Orkney Islands Council.

The new maximum fare on the routes must be notified to the Civil Aviation Authority and to the European Commission which may publish them in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
#### Max Merz, App’lt, *v.*The City of Brooklyn, Resp’t.

*James D. Bell,*for app'lt; *Almet E. Jenks,*for resp’t.

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

Affirming 33 N. Y. State Rep., 577.
#### Michael HURTADO, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Honorable Judge Trentin D. FARRELL; State Attorney Cathy Ferguson; Attorney Jeffery D. Parker; Honorable Judge Sharon MacRae; District Attorney John Charles Bunk; Attorney Stephen Nicholas, Defendants-Appellees

No. 16-50039

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed May 4, 2017

Michael Hurtado, Pro Se

*280Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Michael Hui’tado, Texas prisoner # 1445905, moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in an appeal of the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. His IFP motion is a challenge to the district court’s certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith. *See Baugh v. Taylor,*117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).

In his § 1983 complaint, Hurtado alleged that the trial court judge, district attorney, and his defense counsel obstructed justice and engaged in misconduct in various ways related to his indictment and prosecution. We agree that Hurtado has not shown that he will present a nonfrivo-lous issue on appeal. *See Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, we deny his motion for leave to proceed IFP and dismiss the appeal as frivolous. *See Baugh,*117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

The district court’s dismissal of Hurta-do’s complaint and this court’s dismissal of his appeal each count as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). *See Adepegba v. Hammons,*103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Hurtado also received two strikes in another recent-appeal (No. 16-10453). Because he has accumulated at least three strikes under § 1915(g), Hurtado is barred from proceeding IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. *See*§ 1915(g).

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) BAR IMPOSED.

*

 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                   5
<LEGEND>
     THE SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
     3/29/98  CONDENSED   CONSOLIDATED   BALANCE  SHEET  AND  THE  STATEMENT  OF
     OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
     BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                                  1000
       
<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                       JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                         MAR-29-1998
<CASH>                                                   58,078
<SECURITIES>                                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            13,065
<ALLOWANCES>                                                309
<INVENTORY>                                               6,935
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         94,276
<PP&E>                                                   12,798
<DEPRECIATION>                                            6,757
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                          115,962
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    28,936
<BONDS>                                                       0
<COMMON>                                                    289
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                                   0
<OTHER-SE>                                               86,509
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                            115,962
<SALES>                                                   8,062
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                          8,062
<CGS>                                                     2,631
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                             2,631
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         10,775
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                           15
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          (5,192)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             (1,817)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      (3,375)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           22,517
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                               0
<CHANGES>                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                             19,142
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                              0.66
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              0.66
        


</TABLE>
#### William L. BYARD, Jr., as Personal Representative and surviving son of the Estate of William Lee Byard; Carrie L. Byard, surviving daughter of William Lee Byard; Robert L. Byard, surviving son of William Lee Byard, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-1042

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 27, 2017

Decided: July 6, 2017

Gary J. Ignatowski, Jeffrey J. Uter-mohle, Patrick A. Ciociola, LAW OFFICES OF PETER G. ANGELOS, P.C., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellants. Michael D. Daneker, Eric A. Rey, ARNOLD *&*PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

William L. Byard, Jr., Carrie L. Byard, and Robert L. Byard appeal the district court’s order dismissing the complaint based on this court’s recent decision in *Leichling v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc.,*842 F.3d 848 (4th Cir. 2016). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Byard v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc.,*No. 1:16-cv-00755-ELH, 2016 WL 7212542 (D. Md. Dec. 13, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
#### Earnest Cassell WOODS II, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Darrell ADAMS; Maurice Junious; Nichols; Meraz; Phillips; Mora; William McGuinness; Eleanor Sandoval, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 14-16335

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted September 14, 2017 San Francisco, California

Filed October 06, 2017

Karen Lehmann Alexander, Heather Ut-techt Guerena, Attorney, Duane Morris LLP, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Neah Huynh, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA—Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, Kevin Allen Yoth, Deputy Attorney General, California Department of Justice, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

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

*

 The Honorable Janet Bond Arterton, United States District Judge for the District of Connecticut, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

1. The district court didn’t err by finding that Woods failed to show “imminent dan*529ger of serious physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). This case is unlike Williams v. Paramo, wheré the prisoner alleged actual threats of violence. See 775 F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2015).

2. We grant Woods’s first three motions for judicial notice and deny his fourth motion for judicial notice. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid*529ed by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<PAGE>   1



EXHIBIT 11-STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                   Three Months                Nine Months
                                                      Ended                       Ended
                                                    January 31                  January 31
                                               1997          1996          1997          1996
                                           ------------------------    -------------------------
<S>                                         <C>           <C>           <C>           <C>      
Primary:
Average shares outstanding                  7,477,119     5,974,613     7,477,119     5,890,647
Net effect of dilutive stock options or
  stock grants-based on the treasury
  stock method using average market
  price                                        28,955          --          37,751        31,143
                                           ----------    ----------    ----------    ----------

Totals                                      7,506,074     5,974,613     7,514,870     5,921,790
                                           ==========    ==========    ==========    ==========

Net income                                 $1,164,842    $  668,103    $3,777,330    $1,060,551
                                           ==========    ==========    ==========    ==========

Net income per share                       $     0.16    $     0.11    $     0.50    $     0.18
                                           ==========    ==========    ==========    ==========

Fully diluted:
Average shares outstanding                  7,477,119     5,974,613     7,477,119     5,890,647
Net effect of dilutive stock options or
  stock grants-based on the treasury
  stock method using the quarter end
  market price, if higher than
  average market price                         28,955          --          37,751        31,143
                                           ----------    ----------    ----------    ----------

Totals                                      7,506,074     5,974,613     7,514,870     5,921,790
                                           ==========    ==========    ==========    ==========

Net income                                 $1,164,842    $  668,103    $3,777,330    $1,060,551
                                           ==========    ==========    ==========    ==========

Net income per share                       $     0.16    $     0.11    $     0.50    $     0.18
                                           ==========    ==========    ==========    ==========
</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Daniel PEREZ-MORALES, also known as Jose Santos Martinez, also known as Martin Hernandez, also known as Jose Martinez-Diaz, also known as Jose Luis Aguilar-Perez, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-41534 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 18, 2017

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

Daniel Perez-Morales, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

*831PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Daniel Perez-Morales has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Perez-Morales has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 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.
15485

#### DAVIS v. SMITH

(23 S. E. (2d), 741)

*Mr. C. Victor Pyle*and *Mr. C. S. Bowen,*both of Green-ville, Counsel for Plaintiff, cite:

*540
      *Mr. B. A. Morgan,*of Greenville, Counsel for Defendants,

January 5, 1943.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Chief Justice Bonham.

All of the issues involved in this case were raised in the case of *H. R. Arnold et al. v. City of Spartanburg et al.,*201 S. C., 523, 23 S. E. (2d), 735, and we are governed by the disposition which this Court has made in its opinion in that case which is being filed simultaneously with the opinion in this case.

For the reasons therein stated, the temporary injunction previously granted in this case is dissolved, the prayers for a permanent injunction are refused, and the complaint is dismissed.

*541Messrs. Associate Justices Baker, Fishburne, and Stukes, and Circuit Judge G. Dewey Oxner,. Acting Associate Justice, concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000             SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000             JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         201,238                 278,915
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,443                   3,074
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,160)                   (696)
<INVENTORY>                                      7,194                   6,673
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               241,461                 427,920
<PP&E>                                         405,325                 331,984
<DEPRECIATION>                                (63,772)                (42,199)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 863,492                 888,977
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          114,715                 204,544
<BONDS>                                        500,000                 500,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (385,368)               (391,424)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   863,492                 888,977
<SALES>                                        595,155                 528,005
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               595,155                 528,005
<CGS>                                         (28,044)                (23,507)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                (399,414)               (377,989)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (38,142)                (51,415)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 (542)                   (467)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (31,291)                (41,118)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                104,929                  56,555
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            104,929                  56,555
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                (39,423)
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   104,929                  17,132
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0


</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

          - [Release No. 34-94305]

# ADDRESSES:

Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Mark Elion, Attorney Advisor, Office of Municipal Securities, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or at (202) 551-5680.                                            

      ( print page 11780)    
                            For the Commission, by the Office of Municipal Securities, pursuant to delegated authority.1

Jill M. Peterson,

Assistant Secretary.

# Footnotes

1.                                 17 CFR 200.30-3a(a)(1)(ii).                        
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 2022-04331 Filed 3-1-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
Exhibit 99.1


          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 quarterly report of Capital Preferred Yield Fund-IV, L.P.
(the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2002, as filed with the Security and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, John F. Olmstead, President and Director of CAI Equipment Leasing
V Corp., the General Partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

      1.    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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 Partnership.


By:     /s/John F. Olmstead                            Dated:  November 14, 2002
        -------------------
        John F. Olmstead
Title:  President and Director


                                       21
#### BROWN & CO. vs. CHANCELLOR & CO.

Appeal from Ellis county.

*Garnishment*can only-issue when the debt sued on is due, unless in a case *in*which an original attachment has been issued.

*Days of Grace.*— This suit being brought and the garnishment issued on the day that the note_was executed, the question whether the suit was prematurely brought is dependent upon whether or not a note payable on demand is entitled to grace. After a careful and. elaborate discussion of aiitEorities bearing upon the subject, the_oourt concludes that it was not intended by the acts of_ January 11, 1863, to give .grace to paper other than.suj3h_as.was_gnritlcd_thei’etp under the law-merchant, and that this_su.it was not_brought before the maturity of the paper sued onj from which it follows that the court erred in setting aside the writ and other proceedings in ganrnishment on the ground that the debt was not due.

*Partnership) Authority.*— A general authority to one partner, on dissolution, to settle the business of the firm, does not authorize him to give a note in the firm name to settle__ a fa debt, or to review one given bejore dissoliytion. _

Reversed and remanded.

Stay ton, Judge.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

SURESH PACKIRISAMY,

Petitioner

v.

SENTHAMILSELVI JAYABALAN,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 375 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 24th day of November, 2020

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

TERRY EUGENE SHIELDS,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 95 WAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 1st day of August, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.