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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     US DOLLARS
       
<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           JUN-01-1997
<PERIOD-START>                              JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                       1
<CASH>                                            6,010
<SECURITIES>                                     10,416
<RECEIVABLES>                                    15,071
<ALLOWANCES>                                        318
<INVENTORY>                                          80
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 32,509
<PP&E>                                           14,399
<DEPRECIATION>                                    9,799
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   44,257
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            28,852
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                            105
<OTHER-SE>                                        6,615
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     44,257
<SALES>                                          26,111
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 26,111
<CGS>                                             9,774
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    23,960
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  133
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   2,549
<INCOME-TAX>                                        624
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               1,925
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                      1,925
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      0.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      0.18
        


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Javier RAMIREZ-TOVANCHE, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-50346 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed December 6, 2017

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Judy Fulmer Madewell, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Maureen Scott Franco, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Javier Ramirez-Tovanche appeals the 37-month within-guidelines sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry. He argues that his sentence violates due process because it exceeds the statutory maximum sentence of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He concedes that the issue whether his eligibility for a sentencing enhancement under § 1326(b) must be alleged in the indictment and proved to a jury is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). However, he seeks to preserve the issue -for possible Supreme Court review because, he argues, subsequent Supreme Court decisions indicate that the Court may reconsider this issue.

In *Almendarez-Torres,*523 U.S. at 239-47, 118 S.Ct. 1219, the Supreme Court held that for purposes of a statutory sentencing enhancement, a prior conviction is not a fact that must be alleged in an indictment or found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. This court has held that subsequent *325Supreme Court decisions did not overrule *Almendarez-Torres. See United States v. Wallace,*759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014) (considering the effect of *Alleyne v. United States,*570 U.S. 99, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013)); *United States v. Pineda-Arrellano,*492 F.3d 624, 625-26 (5th Cir. 2007) (considering the effect of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000)). Thus, Ramirez-Tovanche’s argument is foreclosed.

Accordingly, the Government’s motion • for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is 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.
#### Wameedh AL AZZAWI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT SERVICES, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-16114

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2017 *

Filed June 26, 2017

Wameedh A1 Azzawi, Pro Se

Tracy O. Zinsou, William Douglas Sprague, Attorneys, Covington *&*Burling, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Wameedh A1 Azzawi appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action for lack of standing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Braunstein v. Ariz. Dep’t of Transp.,*683 F.3d 1177, 1184 (9th Cir. 2012), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed A1 Azzawi’s action because A1 Azzawi failed to *838satisfy the requirements for constitutional standing or third party standing. *See id.*at 1184-85 (setting forth constitutional standing requirements); *Coalition of Clergy, Lawyers, & Professors v. Bush,*310 F.3d 1153, 1163 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth third-party standing requirements).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Al Azzawi’s motions for sanctions (Docket Entry Nos. 22 and 24) are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,
Exhibit 31.1
CERTIFICATION
I, Jeffry Ciongoli, 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 the Corporate Backed Callable Trust Certificates, J.C.
Penney Debenture-Backed Series 2006-1 Trust (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 on 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 servicer has fulfilled
its obligations under the servicing, or similar, agreement 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 following
unaffiliated party: U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee.
Date: March 27, 2020

By:
/s/ Jeffry Ciongoli
Name:    Jeffry Ciongoli
Title:   Vice President and Assistant Treasurer
(Senior Officer of the Depositor)
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 692 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 22, 2015 

Received 

AN ACT 

To ensure the payment of interest and principal of the debt 

of the United States. 

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


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 692 RDS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Default Prevention 

3 Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. PAYMENT OF PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST ON PUBLIC 

5 DEBT AND SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUNDS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—In the event that the debt of the 

7 United States Government, as defined in section 3101 of 

8 title 31, United States Code, reaches the statutory limit, 

9 the Secretary of the Treasury shall, in addition to any 

10 other authority provided by law, issue obligations under 

11 chapter 31 of title 31, United States Code, to pay with 

12 legal tender, and solely for the purpose of paying, the prin13 cipal and interest on obligations of the United States de14 scribed in subsection (b) after the date of the enactment 

15 of this Act. 

16 (b) OBLIGATIONS DESCRIBED.—For purposes of this 

17 subsection, obligations described in this subsection are ob18 ligations which are— 

19 (1) held by the public, or 

20 (2) held by the Old-Age and Survivors Insur21 ance Trust Fund and Disability Insurance Trust 

22 Fund. 

23 (c) PROHIBITION ON COMPENSATION FOR MEMBERS

24 OF CONGRESS.—None of the obligations issued under sub25 section (a) may be used to pay compensation for Members 

26 of Congress. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 692 RDS

1 (d) OBLIGATIONS EXEMPT FROM PUBLIC DEBT

2 LIMIT.—Obligations issued under subsection (a) shall not 

3 be taken into account in applying the limitation in section 

4 3101(b) of title 31, United States Code, to the extent that 

5 such obligation would otherwise cause the limitation in 

6 section 3101(b) of title 31, United States Code, to be ex7 ceeded. 

8 (e) REPORT ON CERTAIN ACTIONS.— 

9 (1) IN GENERAL.—If, after the date of the en10 actment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury 

11 exercises his authority under subsection (a), the Sec12 retary shall thereafter submit a report each week the 

13 authority is in use providing an accounting relating 

14 to— 

15 (A) the principal on mature obligations 

16 and interest that is due or accrued of the 

17 United States, and 

18 (B) any obligations issued pursuant to 

19 subsection (a). 

20 (2) SUBMISSION.—The report required by para21 graph (1) shall be submitted to the Committee on 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
4 

HR 692 RDS

1 Ways and Means of the House of Representatives 

2 and the Committee on Finance of the Senate. 

Passed the House of Representatives October 21, 

2015. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
|   | 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. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/ Erik Odeen                               |   |
|----------------------------------------------|--------|
| Erik Odeen,                                  |   |
| Chief Financial Officer                      |   |
| (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |   |
| March 31, 2011                               |   |

----
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Certification of Chief
Financial Officer

In connection with the Quarterly
Report of Pure Bioscience (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter
ended April 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Andrew J. Buckland, Chief Financial 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 13, 2006 | /s/ Andrew J. Buckland
Andrew J. Buckland
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




Certification of Chief Financial 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, Gary Brownell, Chief Financial 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, 2004                    /s/ Gary Brownell
-------------------              -----------------------------------
                                 Gary Brownell
                                 Chief Executive Officer
EX-34 (i)
(logo) KPMG

KPMG LLP
1601 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2499

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Members
Regulus Group LLC:

We have examined management's assessment for those customers that management has
informed us have requested confirmation of compliance, included in the
accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance with Regulation AB Servicing
Criteria, that Regulus Group LLC complied with the servicing criteria set forth
in Item 1122(d)(2)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(iv) of the Securities and Exchange
Commission's Regulation AB for remittance processing services to those issuers
of asset backed securities and servicers of loan and/or receivables portfolios
that include pool assets for asset backed securities transactions (the Platform)
as of and for the year ended December 31, 2006. Regulus Group LLC has determined
that the remainder of the servicing criteria are not applicable to the
activities it performs with respect to the Platform as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2006. Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with
those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on
management's assessment about the Company's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public
Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included
examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the
servicing criteria specified above and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of
less than all of the individual asset-backed transactions and securities that
comprise the Platform, testing of less than all of the servicing activities
related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those
selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with
the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selected
transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period
covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to determine whether
errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may
have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company
during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any
other transactions. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis
for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the
Company's compliance with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management's assessment that the Company complied with the
aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2006
is fairly stated, in all material respects.

/s/ KPMG LLP

Philadelphia, PA
February 22, 2007

KPMG LLP, a U.S. limited liability partnership, is the U.S. member firm of KPMG
International, a Swiss cooperative.
#### Syron Devon ROGERS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6551

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 16, 2017

Decided: November 20, 2017

Syron Devon Rogers, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Mozley Harris, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

*186Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Syron Devon Rogers seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed, R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. 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 relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Rogers has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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*
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 for the fiscal quarter ended January 31, 2006 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.


March 15, 2006                   /s/ Michael L. Krall
--------------                   -----------------------------------
                                 Michael L. Krall
                                 Chief Executive Officer
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.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on February 25, 2022, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), MLCommons Association (“MLCommons”) filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Matt Sinclair (individual member), Madison, WI; Serenade Labs Inc., San Francisco, CA; Asustek Computer Incorporation, Taipei City, TAIWAN; New H3C Technologies Co., Ltd., Hangzhou, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; Deep AI Technologies, Caesarea, ISRAEL; Formativ, Paris, FRANCE; Biren Technology, San Jose, CA; Coactive Systems, Inc., San Jose, CA; and Yinhe Han (individual member), Beijing, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA, have been added as parties to this venture.                

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and MLCommons intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On September 15, 2020, MLCommons filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on September 29, 2020 (85 FR 61032).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on December 3, 2021. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on January 13, 2022 (87 FR 2183).                

Suzanne Morris,

Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2022-05457 Filed 3-14-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-P
Metal Cleaning FormulationNONE