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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001005407
<NAME> CHIREX INC
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                             319
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,610
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     28,343
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,967
<PP&E>                                         174,582
<DEPRECIATION>                                  20,431
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 239,790
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           38,187
<BONDS>                                         29,492
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           148
<OTHER-SE>                                     149,445
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   239,790
<SALES>                                         36,478
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                36,624
<CGS>                                         (23,872)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,379
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (1,272)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,034
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,343)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,691
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,691
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.17


</TABLE>
|   | 1) | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or      78o(d)) and |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2) | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company      as of the dates and for the periods covered by the  Report. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| November 12, 2009 |   | /s/ Kyle C. Cook                          |
|-------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------|
| Dated             |   | Kyle      C. Cook                         |
|              |   | Chief      Financial Officer andTreasurer |

----
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6902 

To direct the Department of Defense to report to Congress on the efforts 

of the Department to coordinate with the defense industrial base for 

purposes of countering certain capabilities of the People’s Liberation 

of Army. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 22, 2023 

Ms. SLOTKIN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To direct the Department of Defense to report to Congress 

on the efforts of the Department to coordinate with 

the defense industrial base for purposes of countering 

certain capabilities of the People’s Liberation of Army. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REPORT ON EFFORTS TO COUNTER CERTAIN 

4 CAPABILITIES OF THE PEOPLE’S LIBERATION 

5 OF ARMY. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than March 30, 2024, 

7 the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, in coordination 

8 with the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the comVerDate Sep 11 2014 00:31 Jan 09, 2024 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H6902.IH H6902

kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6902 IH

1 manders of the combatant commands, and the Secretaries 

2 of the military departments, shall submit to the Commit3 tees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

4 Representatives a report on the efforts of the Department 

5 of Defense to coordinate with the defense industrial base 

6 to counter the command, control, communications, com7 puters, cyber, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnais8 sance (commonly referred to as ‘‘C5ISR’’) capabilities of 

9 the People’s Liberation Army. 

10 (b) ELEMENTS.—The report under subsection (a) 

11 shall include the following: 

12 (1) A description of the efforts of the Depart13 ment of Defense to better coordinate with the de14 fense industrial base in the space and cyber domains 

15 for purposes of countering the C5ISR capabilities of 

16 the People’s Liberation Army. 

17 (2) A plan for expanding such coordination, in18 cluding plans for— 

19 (A) conducting table-top exercises with 

20 interagency and industry participants and insti21 tutions that interface with commercial partners 

22 of the Department; and 

23 (B) establishing mechanisms through 

24 which organizations in the defense industrial 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 6902 IH

1 base can share information on C5ISR threats 

2 with the Department. 

3 (3) Feedback from commercial partners and 

4 other departments and agencies of the Federal Gov5 ernment on— 

6 (A) the implications for the defense indus7 trial base of a potential conflict with the Peo8 ple’s Liberation Army involving C5ISR capabili9 ties; and 

10 (B) steps that may be taken to enhance 

11 the ability of the Department and the defense 

12 industrial base to counter such capabilities. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jerrol BLUFORD, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-20288 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 5, 2017

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

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Timothy William Crooks, Kayla R. Gassmann, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jerrol Bluford pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit interference with commerce by robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), and to two counts of using and brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). He was sentenced to a total of 552 months of imprisonment.

Bluford contends that the district court erred in accepting his guilty plea to, and sentencing him for, the § 924(c)(l)(A)(ii) offenses. He asserts that his § 1951(a) offenses are not “crimes of violence” under § 924(c) because they lack the necessary level of force for purposes of § 924(c)(3)(A), and § 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague in light of *Johnson v. United States,*— U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015). Bluford maintains that the factual basis in support of his guilty plea to the § 924(c)(l)(A)(ii) offenses, which relied on the § 1951(a) robberies as the predicate crimes of violence, is legally insufficient.

Applying *United States v. Gonzalez-Longoria,*831 F.3d 670, 672-79 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc), *petition for cert, filed*(Sept. 29, 2016) (No. 16-6259), in which we rejected a Johnson-based challenge to the substantively identical 18 U.S.C. § 16(b), we recently held that *Johnson*does not invalidate § 924(c)(3)(B). *United States v. Davis,*No. 16-10330, 677 Fed.Appx. 933, 936, 2017 WL 436037, *2 (5th Cir. Jan. 81, 2017) (unpublished).1 Therefore, Bluford’s claim is foreclosed. Although the Supreme Court granted certiorari in *Lynch v. Dimaya,*— U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 31, 195 L.Ed.2d 902 (2016), regarding whether § 16(b) is unconstitutionally vague in light of *Johnson,*we are bound by our own precedent unless and until that precedent is altered by a decision of the Supreme *427Court. *See Wicker v. McCotter,*798 F.2d 155, 157-58 (5th Cir. 1986).

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.

1

. While unpublished opinions are not prece-dential, they are persuasive. *See Ballard v. Burton,*444 F.3d 391, 401 & n.7 (5th Cir. 2006) (recognizing that unpublished decisions issued after January 1, 1996, are not controlling precedent but may be considered persuasive authority).
#### William Scott DAVIS, II, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of N.C.; Community Psychological Resource; Hampton Roads Mental Health Associates; City of Hampton; Honnely DSS-CPS WCHS-CPS; Mike Easly, NC Governor; Beverly Pardic, NC Governor; Pat McCory, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-7706

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 30, 2017

Decided: April 4, 2017

*275William Scott Davis, II, Appellant Pro Se.

Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

William Scott Davis, II, appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil rights action for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny Davis’ motions to remand and to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, and dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. Davis v. North Carolina, No. 2:16-cv-00549-MSD-DEM (E.D. Va. Oct. 4, 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.

DISMISSED
# Dallas County

Public Defender’s Office

 133 N. Riverfront Blvd., 9 th Floor, LB 2  Dallas Texas 75207- 4313  Phone: (214) 653- 3550  Fax: (214) 653- 3539  

## May 12 , 2015

Lisa Matz, Clerk Fifth Court of Appeals 600 Commerce Street, Suite 200 Dallas, Texas 75202

Re: Certification of Compliance with Rule 48.4

Russell Starks v. The State of Texas Trial Court Case No. F13 -32480-K Appellate Court Case No

. 05-14 -00191- CR

Dear Ms. Matz:

Pursuant to Rule 48.4, of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, I certify that a copy of the opinion and judgment in the above styled and numbered cause was sent, certified mail, return receipt requested, to the Appellant at his last known address. I further certify that, along with the opinion and judgment, a letter was included in which the Appellant was advised that I intend to file a Petition for Discretionary Review on his behalf.

Respectfully,

/s/ Kathleen A. Walsh

Kathleen A. Walsh Assistant Public Defender

enclosure: certified mail return receipt

cc: G. Brian Garrison , Assistant District Attorney ACCEPTED 05-14-00191-CR FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS

DALLAS, TEXAS 5/13/2015 10:54:13 AM

LISA MATZ CLERK**~** 0'\

'." II Complete i!omsl, 2. and 3, Also complete item 4 if .Restricted Delive!Y'ls desired.

c II Print your liame and address on the reverse

so that we can return the card to you.

• Attach this card to the back of thg'imailpiece,

or on the front if space permits.

# \t:);;~\1dt3-\-ox**~S** 

# . \DC-:S**~O\q\\Y{3** 

# \



# Pr\ly 

# -ed \J \'l 

# i-\- 

# 1.- \ D \ 

## \=VV\ 

# '3loq 

# W.Of\n T D-NQ

## ~O('L 

# ;I)C.1 (Dj{j**~** o Addressee

C •

.Qate of Delivery J**~** 

## 8"-/..)

O. IsdeliveryJddress different from item 11 0 Yes
If YES, enter delivery address below:

. 0 No

3. SelJliite1Yfje

EJ'Certffied Mail€! D Priority Mail Express'" 

## o Registered D Return Receipt for Merchandise 

## o Insured Mail 0 Collect on Delivery

4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) 0 Yes

### --~~~--~----------~----~~ 2. Article Number 

### 7013 2250 0002 2038 8629 (Transferfrom servie'**~j,**

, PSForm3811,July2013 Domestic Return Receipt
**Exhibit 31.1**




**Certification**




I,
      Terry
      L. McCoy, in my capacity as Executive Vice President of First Horizon Asset
      Securities Inc. (the Depositor) do hereby 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 First
      Horizon Alternative Mortgage Securities Trust 2006-FA7 (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.  Based
      upon my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement 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; and





5.    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.





In
      giving
      the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided
      to me
      by The Bank of New York.


**First
                Horizon Asset Securities Inc., as Depositor**By:
            /s/ Terry
              L. McCoyTerry
              L. McCoy,Executive
                Vice President(Senior
                Officer of the Depositor in charge of
                Securitization)




Date:
      March 26, 2007
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Anthony S. Loumidis, certifythat:

1.               Ihave reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of American DG Energy Inc.;

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

3.               Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer asof, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.               Thesmall business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer andhave:

a.               Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

b.              Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and

c.               Disclosedin this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in thecase of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likelyto materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting.

5.               Thesmall business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, tothe small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the smallbusiness issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

c.               Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and

d.              Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting.
|                    |
|-------------------------|
| Date: March 30, 2007    |
|                    |
|                    |
| /s/ Anthony S. Loumidis |   |
| Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                    ------------

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTS OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Wireless Xcessories Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report"), I Stephen
Rade, Chief Executive 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, to the best of my knowledge, that:

(1)  The 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 report fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



BY: /S/ STEPHEN RADE
    ---------------------
    STEPHEN RADE
    CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
    AUGUST 9, 2006
#### John J. HYNES, Jr. & Eileen J. Hynes, Petitioners, Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent, Appellee.

No. 16-1336

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

December 7, 2016

Timothy J. Burke for appellants.

Sherra Wong, Attorney, Tax Division, with whom Bruce R. Ellisen, Attorney, Tax Division, and Caroline D. Ciraolo, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice, were on brief, for appellee.

Before Lynch, Lipez, and Barron, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam.

Appellants John J. Hynes, Jr. and Eileen J. Hynes appeal an adverse United States Tax Court decision. After oral argument and a careful review of the record and briefs, we summarily affirm the judgment of the Tax Court. See 1st Cir. R. 27.0(c). In doing so, we specifically note that the Tax Court correctly placed on appellants the burden of proving that they had not in fact received the income reported on their tax returns, and that the court did not err in finding that appellants had failed to meet this burden. See Cavallaro v. Comm’r, 2016 WL 6820367, at *3 (1st Cir. Nov. 18, 2016); United States v. Rexach, 482 F.2d 10, 16 (1st Cir. 1973). Similarly, we note that the Tax Court did not err in finding that appellants were liable for the accuracy-related penalties imposed by the Internal Revenue Service. See I.R.C. § 6662.

Affirmed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darrell Eugene WASHINGTON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-4001

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Filed November 3, 2016

(D.C. No. 1:02-CR-00034-DB-1) (D. Utah)

Michael Kennedy, Elizabethanne Claire Stevens, Esq., Jeannette Frazier Swent, Office of the United States Attorney, District of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Benji McMurray, Office of the Federal Public Defender, District of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before MATHESON, McKAY, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

Darrell Eugene Washington appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for a *902sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 782 to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. But while this appeal was pending, the district court vacated Mr. Washington’s sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, rendering this appeal moot. *See United States v. Moore, 83 F.3d*1231, 1235 (10th Cir. 1996) (when a sentence is vacated under § 2255, “the original sentence ... is eviscerated”). We therefore grant Mr. Washington’s motion to dismiss.

We grant Mr. Washington’s motion to proceed on appeal without prepayment of costs or fees. The relevant statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1916(a)(1), does not permit litigants to avoid payment of filing and docketing fees, only *prepayment*of those fees. Although we have dismissed this appeal, Mr. Washington remains obligated to pay all filing and docketing fees. He is directed to pay the fees in full to the clerk of the district court.