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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       2,147,314
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,699,670
<ALLOWANCES>                                     8,279
<INVENTORY>                                  5,091,630
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,312,440
<PP&E>                                       3,447,871
<DEPRECIATION>                                 623,757
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,339,054
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,867,422
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,366
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,445,104
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,339,054
<SALES>                                     20,496,567
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                       13,497,840
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               19,298,170
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               231,636
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             246,655
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                720,106
<INCOME-TAX>                                   254,736
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   465,370
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .15
        

</TABLE>
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No . FAA - 2012 - 1088 Directorate ID : 2012 - SW - 005 - AD Helicopter Model: Robinson Helicopter Company Model R44 and R44 I I Helicopters Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 165 Helicopters in the US Registry . Reason : The actions of this AD are intended prevent the failure of the emergency floats to inflate during an emergency

landing. Costs : Parts per Helicopter $850 to $955 Labor per Helicopter ( 2.5 x $ 8 5 /work - hour for the replacement) $ 213 Other (Explain) Total Cost per Helicopter $1,063 to $1,168 Total US Fleet Cost $ Executive Order 12866 : Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No (  ) DOT Regulatory

Policies and Procedures : Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No (  ) Regulatory

Flexibility

Act : Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Yes ( ) No (  ) Project Engineer : Venessa Stiger
#### Johnny JACKSON, Petitioner-Appellant v. Charles A. DANIELS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee

No. 16-40660 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 16, 2017

Johnny Jackson, Pro Se

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. .

PER CURIAM: *

Johnny Jackson, federal prisoner # 00220-748, is serving a 100-year sentence for various offenses related to his role in a drug conspiracy. He now appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. He argues that he received an illegal sentence because, he contends, it was higher than the statutory maximum sentence and was based on a Guidelines range that also exceeds the statutory maximum sentence. We review the district court’s legal determinations *de novo*and its factual findings for clear error. *Padilla v. United States,*416 F.3d 424, 425 (5th Cir. 2005).

Generally a federal prisoner must seek relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 if he wishes to challenge his conviction or sentence. *Id.*at 425-26. Nevertheless, he may raise claims in a Section 2241 petition where the remedy under Section 2255 is inadequate or ineffective and thus the claims fall within the savings clause of Section 2255(e). *Id.*at 426. He must establish that his claims (1) are based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision that establishes that he may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense and (2) were foreclosed by circuit law at the time of his trial, direct appeal, or first Section 2255 motion. *See Reyes-Requena v. United States,*243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001). To meet the first prong, he must show “that based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision, he was convicted for conduct that did not constitute a crime.” *Jeffers v. Chandler,*253 F.3d 827, 831 (5th Cir. 2001).

Jackson does not argue that he was convicted of a. now non-existent offense. Instead, he asserts that his sentence was illegal because the Guidelines range and the prison term he ultimately received exceeded the statutory maximum sentence. However, a challenge to the legality of the sentence does not fall within the savings clause. *See Padilla,*416 F.3d at 426-27.

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.
*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.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 01-10341

Summary Calendar

MARCY MERNIK,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

CLASSIC CARS, INC., doing business as Classic BMW,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas

(3:99-CV-1327-P)

September 6, 2001

Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Marcy Mernik, Appellant, filed this suit in the District Court

for the Northern District of Texas against her former employer,

Classic Cars, Inc., alleging claims for sex discrimination, sexual

harassment, and retaliation pursuant to Title VII of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964. Classic Cars, Inc. answered and moved for
summary judgment on the grounds that Mernik was terminated because

of a history of insubordination and repeated tardiness. The

District Court in a Memorandum Opinion and Order filed June 28,

2000, granted Classic Cars, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment and

Mernik appealed. 

We have carefully reviewed the briefs, the record excerpts,

and relevant portions of the record. For the reasons stated by the

District Court in its Memorandum and Order, we affirm the grant of

summary judgment in favor of Classic Cars, Inc.

AFFIRMED.
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

In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Gensym Corporation (the Company) for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the
undersigned, Stephen D. Allison, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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 Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |                                           
|------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------
|Dated: June 6, 2007 |  | /s/ STEPHEN D. ALLISON                    
|                    |  | Stephen D. Allison Chief Financial
Officer
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



In connection with the Annual Report of EastBridge Investment Group Corporation, (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Norm Klein, Chief 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 the best of my knowledge:



(1)

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



(2)

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



EASTBRIDGE INVESTMENT GROUP CORPORATION;

By /s/ Norm Klein

Norm Klein

Chief Financial officer

March 31, 2009
Dated:    03/29/2007                                                                               In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:By: /s/                 E. Todd Whittemore                                   Title:Executive Vice President, Master ServicingAurora Loan Services LLC,   as Master ServicerI, E. Todd Whittemore, certify that:1.  I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of  Structured Adjustable Rate Mortgage Loan Trust, Series 2006-10 (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");2.  Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;4.  I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicers and based on my knowledge and the compliance reviews conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and5.  All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.E. Todd Whittemore**Exhibit 31 : Sarbanes-Oxley Certification**Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP, as ServicerFirst American Real Estate Solutions of Texas, L.P., as Sub-Contractor for Aurora Loan Services LLCLaSalle Bank National Association, as CustodianNewport Management Corporation, as Sub-Contractor for Aurora Loan Services LLCU.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, Paying Agent and Custodian
Wachovia
                Securities8739
                Research Drive, URP4Charlotte,
                NC 28288









**1123
            SERVICER’S CERTIFICATE**
 
 
 
 Reference
            is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing
            Agreement dated as of
            October 11, 2005, by and among Structured Asset Securities Corporation,
            II, as
            Depositor, Wachovia Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, Midland
            Loans Services, Inc., as Special Servicer, LaSalle Bank, National Association,
            as Trustee, and ABN AMRO Bank, as Fiscal Agent, with respect to Commercial
            Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005C-7 (the "Agreement").
            Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings
            assigned in the Agreement.
 
 Pursuant
            to Section 3.13 of this Agreement, Timothy Ryan, and Marilyn Addison,
            Managing
            Director of Customer Relationship Management and Director of Compliance
            Third
            Party Oversight, do hereby certify that:
 
 1.
                A
                    review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period
                    from
                    January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006 and of its performance
                    under the
                    Agreement during such period has been made under our supervision;
                    and 
 2.
                To
                    the best of our knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer
                    has
                    fulfilled all of its obligations under this Agreement in all
                    material
                    respects throughout the period January 1, 2006 through December
                    31, 2006;
                    and 
 3.
                The
                    Master Servicer has received no notice regarding the qualification
                    or
                    challenging the status of any REMIC Pool as a REMIC, or the Grantor
                    Trust
                    as a grantor trust, from the Internal Revenue Service or any
                    other
                    governmental agency or body. IN
            WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Certificate as of
            the
            10 th day of
            March 2007.
  /s/
            Timothy S. Ryan   
/s/Marilyn
            Addison
 Timothy
            S. Ryan, Managing Director      Marilyn Addison,
            Director
 Wachovia
            Bank National Association  Wachovia Bank National Association
 O:\Shared/SP/Income/Compliance
        3rdParty Oversight/Annual Certification/Certification_0307/2006 /LBUBS
        2006-C7
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF TRUSTEE

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



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned Trustee of FSP 50 South Tenth Street Corp. Liquidating
Trust (the “Liquidating Trust”) hereby certifies, to his knowledge, that:



(i)  the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K
of the Liquidating Trust for the year ended December 31, 2016 (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 Liquidating Trust.



Date: March 30, 2017



|By: | /s/ John G. Demeritt                                            | 
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|    | John G. Demeritt                                                | 
|    | Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer | 
|    | FSP PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LLC                                     | 
|    | Trustee of FSP 50 South Tenth Street Corp. Liquidating Trust    | 



The foregoing certification is being furnished with the Liquidating
Trust’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being filed for purposes
of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and it is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing
of the Liquidating Trust, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general information language in such
filing.
#### The State v. Maher *et al.*

1. Appeal: evidence to support verdict. Since it cannot be said that there was such a want of evidence in this case that the jury, in the exercise of their discretion, could not have found the defendants guilty, this court cannot reverse the judgment for a want of evidence.

2. Criminal Law : alibi : instructions as to evidence. *(State v. Maher, ante,*p. 77, *followed).*

3. Appeal: objections to evidence not urged below. Where evidence is objected to below on a certain stated ground, another ground not so stated cannot be urged on appeal.

*83
      *Appeal from, Polk District Court.*— Hon. Josiah Given, Judge.

Filed, March 8, 1888.

The defendants were indicted and convicted oí robbery. They now appeal to this court.

*McHenry, McHenry & McHenry,*for appellants.

*A. J.*Baker, Attorney General, for the State.

Beck, J.

, . 1. Appeal : eviaenee to sup-I. Defendants’ counsel first object that the verdict of the jury is not supported by the evidence. All that need be said upon this point . , , *n*. , x is that the evidence is, to some extent, conflicting, ana is not wholly certain in connecting the defendants with the crime. But it cannot be said that it is so wanting in this regard that the jury, in the proper exercise of their discretion, could not have found the defendants guilty. We cannot, therefore, interfere with the verdict.

2. cbiminal itractioM ^ to evidence. II. The defendants relied upon an *alibi*as a defense. As applicable thereto the district court gave certain instructions *like,*if not *verbatim*copies of the instructions given in the preced-ing case of *State v. Maher, ante,*p. 77. The same objections to the instructions urged in that case are urged in this. We need not repeat what we have said in the prior case upon the objections to these instructions. We again hold them to be correct.

3. appeal : obevident0not urged below. III. The prosecuting witness was permitted to testify in his re-direct examination that another person on °f 'the crime had given the names of defendants, who were then suspectecl. The evidence was properly admitted by the court below, for the reason that inquiries as to the names of the parties he suspected were made by defendants’ counsel upon the cross-examination, and the evidence was proper to explain why the witness charged defendants with the crime. Counsel insist that the *84question in response to which, the evidence was given was leading. But no such objection was made at the time it was asked. If subject to objection on this ground, it was waived by a failure to make it when the error, if any, could have been corrected.

No other questions arise in the case. The judgment of the district court is

Aeeiemed.
#### Marie E. Smith, Respondent, *v.*Bernard Tobias, Appellant.

Submitted May 17, 1943;

decided May 27, 1943.

*Archibald, Palmer*for motion.

*Henry A. Friedman*opposed.

' Motion denied, with ten dollars costs, on the ground that the order of the Appellate Division, from which the appeal is taken, does not finally determine the action or special proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution. (See 290 N. Y. 874.)
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, Solomon Nordine, Chief Financial Officer of Border
Management, Inc., hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Border Management, Inc. for the year
ended December 31, 2006 (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 Border
Management, Inc.

Dated: July 13,2007

/s/ Solomon Nordine
------------------
Solomon Nordine
Chief Financial Officer,
Border Management, Inc.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Border Management,
Inc. and will be retained by Border Management, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
exv4w14



 


EXHIBIT 4.14




PROMISSORY NOTE




	 	 	 
	$500,000

 	 	
November 5, 1998

Alexandria, Virginia




     FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, a Virginia corporation (the
Borrower) hereby promises to pay to the order of RESEARCH INDUSTRIES
INCORPORATED, a Virginia corporation (the Lender), at 123 North Pitt Street,
Alexandria, Virginia 22314, or such other location as the holder hereof may in
writing designate, the principal sum of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND AND NO/00 DOLLARS
($500,000), in lawful money of the United States of America in immediately
available funds, on February 2, 1999, without defense, offset or counterclaim,
together with interest on the unpaid principal amount hereof, at such office, in
like money and funds, from the date hereof at the rate of eight (8) per cent per
annum.


     This Note is subject to the terms and conditions of the Subordination
Agreement dated January 27, 1998 entered into by and among Research Industries
Incorporated, Crestar Bank and Halifax Corporation as modified in writing by
Crestar Bank in a certain letter dated October 30, 1998.


     This Note is one of two Notes referred to in the November 2, 1998
Amendment to the Loan Agreement between the Borrower and the Lender dated
October 8, 1998.


     The Borrower hereby waives presentment, demand, notice of dishonor,
protest and all other demands and notices in connection with the delivery,
acceptance, performance and enforcement of this Note. Lender shall be entitled
to recover any costs and reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in the collection
of this Note.


     This Note may be prepaid at anytime without penalty.


     This Note shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws
of the Commonwealth of Virginia, without reference to conflict of laws
principles.


     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Borrower has caused this note to be executed by
its duly authorized President as of the day and year first above written.





	 	 
	 	BORROWER
	 
	 	HALIFAX CORPORATION

a Virginia Corporation
	 
	 	By:  /s/  HOWARD C. MILLS

	 	


	 	
Name:  Howard C. Mills

Title: President