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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1997             JUL-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1997             AUG-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1997             APR-30-1997
<CASH>                                       2,652,560               2,652,560
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  221,976                 221,976
<ALLOWANCES>                                     9,000                   9,000
<INVENTORY>                                     21,185                  21,185
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,343,138               3,343,138
<PP&E>                                         716,115                 716,115
<DEPRECIATION>                                 108,089                 108,089
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,968,811               3,968,811
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          405,427                 405,427
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                     5,264,374               5,264,374
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,700,990)             (1,700,990)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,968,811               3,968,811
<SALES>                                        273,904                 708,046
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               273,904                 708,046
<CGS>                                          172,092                 479,079
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  587,389               1,264,540
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               155,481                 422,045
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (485,577)             (1,035,573)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                     800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (485,577)             (1,036,373)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (449,874)               (909,716)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.08)                  (0.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0
        

</TABLE>
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-10164

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Pedro Hernandez Zarate, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:21-CR-112-3

______________________________

Before Smith, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The attorney appointed to represent Pedro Hernandez Zarate has 

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders 

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 

(5th Cir. 2011). Zarate has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s 

brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 5, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-10164 Document: 00516883670 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/05/2023
No. 23-10164

2

Zarate’s response. 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. 

Case: 23-10164 Document: 00516883670 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/05/2023
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

Proposed State Implementation Plan (SIP) R evision for Me et ing the

R e quirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA)

The Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC), Division

of Air Quality w ill conduct a public hearing on a proposed State Implementation Plan (SIP)

revision for meeting the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA)

. The purpose of th e SIP

revision is to supplement a SIP revision that was previously submitted to the U

. S

. Environmental

Protecti on Agency ( EPA ) on September 17, 2009, State Implementation Plan for Meeting the Infrastructure Requirements of the Clean Air Act for Fine Particulate Matter

. Th at 2009 SIP

revision was su bmitted to the EPA to satisfy the requirements of Section 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)

of the CAA regarding the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for Fine Particles (PM 2.5 ) promulgated by the EPA on October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61224).

Delaware’s September 17, 2009 SIP revision explained , among other things, how Delaw are has

satisfied the requirements of CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (I) for interstate transport. This SIP revision supplement s the September 17, 2009 SIP revision by adding a technical analysis that explains

and demonstrates in detail how Delaware has satisfied the requirements of CAA 110(a)(2)(D )(i)(I)

.

On December 8, 2010 pursuant to the provisions o f 40CFR Part 51 Appendix v at 2.3.1

, DNREC

submitted this supplemental technical analysis to the EPA

, and requested that EPA process it in parallel with any propose d rulemaking on its September 17, 2009 SIP submission while DNREC completes the public participation procedures necessary to make a formal SIP revision request

. This was done to enable EPA to consider this technical analysis in any rulemaking it takes on Delaware’s September 17, 2009 submittal between now and the date the complete formal

submittal of this SIP supplement is made by DNREC to EPA.

A public hearing on th is proposed SIP revision will be held February 1, 2011 , beginning at 6:00 p.m. in the DNR EC’s Auditorium, R & R Building, 89 Kings Hwy, Dover, DE 19901 . The proposed SIP revision may be inspected at the Department’s offices located at Division of Air Quality at the Blue Hen Corporate Center, 655 S. Bay Road, Suite 5N and 715 Grantham Lane,

Ne w Castle

, or viewed on DNREC’s website: http://www.awm.delaware.gov/Info/Regs/Pages/ AQMPlansRegs.aspx

, or by contacting Jack Sipple at (302) 739

- 9402 or john.sipple@state.de.us

.

Interested parties may submit comments in writing on th is proposed SIP revision prior to the public hearing

, and/or comments may be presented either ora lly or in writing at the public hearing. If you are unable to attend the public hearing or wish to submit your comments in advance of the public hearing, please address your comments to:

Jack Sipple Division of Air Quality Blue Hen Corporate Center655 S. Bay Road Dover, DE 19901

THIS IS THE ONLY TIME TH IS NOTICE WILL APPEAR
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE DECEMBER
31, 1997 FINANCIAL  STATMENTS OF SMARTSERV ONLINE,  INC. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001005698
<NAME>                        SMARTSERV ONLINE, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                       JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                         MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                               1,320,859 
<SECURITIES>                                 0 
<RECEIVABLES>                          133,162 
<ALLOWANCES>                             6,000 
<INVENTORY>                             41,643 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     1,489,664 
<PP&E>                                 968,373 
<DEPRECIATION>                         275,120 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       2,249,882 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                1,338,178 
<BONDS>                                120,237 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0 
<PREFERRED>                                  0 
<COMMON>                                36,950 
<OTHER-SE>                             754,517 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         2,249,882 
<SALES>                                381,787 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       381,787 
<CGS>                                1,146,390 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        1,146,390 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     1,160,227 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             0 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     675,081 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     (2,577,280)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 0 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 (2,577,280)
<DISCONTINUED>                               0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0 
<CHANGES>                                    0 
<NET-INCOME>                        (2,577,280)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            (0.70)
<EPS-DILUTED>                            (0.70)
        


</TABLE>
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 104 (Friday, May 30, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 31110]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-12595]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9015-2]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General 
Information (202) 564-7146 or http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements
Filed 05/19/2014 Through 05/23/2014
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

NOTICE:

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public 
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment 
letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.

EIS No. 20140154, Draft EIS, USACE, MS, Bayou Casotte Harbor Channel 
Improvement Project, Comment Period Ends: 07/14/2014, Contact: Jennifer 
Jacobson 251-690-2724
EIS No. 20140155, Draft EIS, USFWS, CA, Maricopa Sun Solar Complex 
Habitat Conservation Plan, Comment Period Ends: 08/25/2014, Contact: 
Mike Thomas 906-414-6600
EIS No. 20140156, Second Draft EIS (Tiering), BLM, AFS, ID, Smoky 
Canyon Mine, Panels F & G Lease and Mine Plan Modification Project, 
Comment Period Ends: 07/15/2014, Contact: Diane Wheeler 208-557-5839

    The U.S. Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management and 
U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service are joint lead agencies 
for the above project.

EIS No. 20140157, Final Supplement, GSA, CA, San Ysidro Land Port of 
Entry Improvements Project, Review Period Ends: 06/30/2014, Contact: 
Osmahn A. Kadri 415-522-3617
EIS No. 20140158, Draft Supplement, NMFS, AK, Management of the 
Subsistence Harvest of Northern Fur Seals on St. George Island, Comment 
Period Ends: 07/14/2014, Contact: Michael Williams 907-271-5117
EIS No. 20140159, Final EIS, RUS, ND, Antelope Valley Station to Neset 
Transmission Project, Review Period Ends: 06/30/2014, Contact: Dennis 
Rankin 202-720-1953
EIS No. 20140160, Final EIS, NPS, FL, Biscayne National Park Fishery 
Management Plan, Review Period Ends: 06/30/2014, Contact: Vanessa 
McDonough 305-230-1144 ext. 027
EIS No. 20140161, Final EIS, BLM, CA, Modified Blythe Solar Power 
Project, Proposed Amendment to Right-of-Way Grant CACA 048811, Review 
Period Ends: 06/30/2014, Contact: Frank McMenimen 760-833-7150

    Dated: May 27, 2014.
Cliff Rader,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2014-12595 Filed 5-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CARLOS GEOVANNI SAMAYOA-DELA 

ROSA, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting

Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 15-73041 

Agency No. A095-755-173 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 27, 2018**

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Carlos Geovanni Samayoa-Dela Rosa, a native and citizen of Guatemala, 

petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order 

dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his 

application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

DEC 3 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-73041 

Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We 

review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the 

standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the REAL ID 

Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the 

petition for review.

Samayoa-Dela Rosa does not challenge the agency’s dispositive conclusion 

that his asylum application was untimely and that he failed to establish any 

changed or extraordinary circumstances to excuse the untimely filing. See 

Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not 

specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Thus, his 

asylum claim fails.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination

based on inconsistencies between Samayoa-Dela Rosa’s testimony and declaration 

as to the events of his first interaction with gang members, who caused SamayoaDela Rosa’s motorcycle accident, the identity of his grandfather’s murderer, and 

based on the omission of Samayoa-Dela Rosa’s cousin’s murder from his 

declaration. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable 

under the totality of the circumstances). In this case, in the absence of credible 
3 15-73041 

testimony, Samayoa-Dela Rosa’s withholding of removal claim fails. See Farah v. 

Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Finally, Samayoa-Dela Rosa’s CAT claim fails because it is based on the 

same testimony the agency found not credible, and Samayoa-Dela Rosa does not 

point to any other evidence in the record that compels the conclusion that it is more 

likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the 

government of Guatemala. See id. at 1156-57.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Exhibit 32.1


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


Certification of Chief Executive Officer

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Pure Bioscience (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael L. Krall, Chief Executive Officer 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
Company.

June 14, 2005                    /s/ Michael L. Krall
-------------------              -----------------------------------
                                 Michael L. Krall
                                 Chief Executive Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Patrick Jerome BOYD, a/k/a LD, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6778

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: October 31, 2017

Decided: November 8, 2017

Patrick Jerome Boyd, Appellant Pro Se. Steven R. Kaufman, William Michael Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit fudges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Patrick Jerome Boyd seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend its prior order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as successive. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies *306relief 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 Boyd 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*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Carlos FUENTES-HIDALGO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-10357

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 11, 2017*

Filed July 17, 2017

Krissa Marie Lanham, USPX—Office of the US Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Juan Carlos Fuentes-Hidalgo, Pro Se

Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Juan Carlos Fuentes-Hidalgo appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 72-month sentence for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, and aiding and abetting, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and 18 U.S.C. *695§ 2. Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Fuentes-Hidalgo’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Fuentes-Hidalgo the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Fuentes-Hidalgo waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. Our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver. *See United States v. Watson,*582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss the appeal. *See id.*at 988.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

DISMISSED.

**

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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 34 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 34

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas the United States Constitution provides that the Vice President of the 
        United States shall serve as President of the Senate; and
Whereas the careers of the 44 Americans who held that post during the years 1789 
        through 1993 richly illustrate the development of the nation and its 
        government; and
Whereas the vice presidency, traditionally the least understood and most often 
        ignored constitutional office in the Federal Government, deserves wider 
        attention: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring),

SECTION 1. PRINTING OF THE ``VICE PRESIDENTS OF THE UNITED STATES, 
              1789-1993''.

    (a) In General.--There shall be printed as a Senate document the 
book entitled ``Vice Presidents of the United States, 1789-1993'', 
prepared by the Senate Historical Office under the supervision of the 
Secretary of the Senate.
    (b) Specifications.--The Senate document described in subsection 
(a) shall include illustrations and shall be in the style, form, 
manner, and binding as directed by the Joint Committee on Printing 
after consultation with the Secretary of the Senate.
    (c) Number of Copies.--In addition to the usual number of copies, 
there shall be printed with suitable binding the lesser of--
            (1) 1,000 copies (750 paper bound and 250 case bound) for 
        the use of the Senate, to be allocated as determined by the 
        Secretary of the Senate; or
            (2) a number of copies that does not have a total 
        production and printing cost of more than $11,100.

            Passed the Senate December 20, 1995.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
104th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                            S. CON. RES. 34

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 To authorize the printing of ``Vice Presidents of the United States, 
                              1789-1993''.
```
#### Patrick L. RICHARDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MONTEREY COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-15875

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 21, 2017

Patrick L. Richardson, Pro Se

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and . HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

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

MEMORANDUM ***

California state prisoner Patrick L. Richardson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his petition for a writ of *coram nobis.*We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, *United States v.*
      *529
      *Monreal,*301 F.3d 1127, 1130 (9th Cir. 2002), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Richardson’s petition challenging his California state conviction for murder because *coram nobis*relief is not available in federal court to attack a state court conviction. *See id.*at 1131 (“[W]rit of error *coram nobis*... may only be brought in the sentencing court.”).

Richardson’s request that this court order the district court to.cease collecting payments from his prisoner trust account to satisfy the filing fee, set forth in his request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 6), is denied. To the extent that Richardson requests that this court take judicial notice of the district court’s orders in this proceeding (Docket Entry No. 6), that request is denied as unnecessary.

AFFIRMED.

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