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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         246,264
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,060,255
<ALLOWANCES>                                    35,284
<INVENTORY>                                  1,585,767
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,937,894
<PP&E>                                       4,995,409
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,409,018
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,111,080
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,671,985
<BONDS>                                      1,778,272
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    16,655,703
<OTHER-SE>                                (11,994,880)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,111,080
<SALES>                                      2,445,556
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,445,556
<CGS>                                        1,840,879
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,070,940
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             110,154
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (567,648)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (567,648)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.08)
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

(18 U.S.C. 1350)

 

The undersigned, Robert S.Herlin, President and Chief Executive Officer of Evolution PetroleumCorporation (the “Company”), certifies in connection with the filing with theSecurities and Exchange Commission of the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended March 31, 2009 (the “Report”) pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, tohis knowledge, that:

 

1. The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2. The information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theundersigned has executed this certification as of the 15th day of May, 2009.

 
|   | /s/ ROBERT S. HERLIN                  |
|--------|---------------------------------------|
|   | Robert S. Herlin                      |
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to EvolutionPetroleum Corporation and will be retained by Evolution Petroleum Corporationand furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.  The foregoing certificate isbeing furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to thisForm 10-Q and shall not be considered filed as part of the Form 10-Q.

 

----
# Official Journal L 392/2021

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 392 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 645 November 2021 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 392

English edition

Legislation

Volume 645 November 2021

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | ACTS ADOPTED BY BODIES CREATED BY INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS |
| | * | UN Regulation No 94 – Uniform provisions concerning the approval of vehicles with regard to the protection of the occupants in the event of a frontal collision [2021/1860] | 1 |
| | * | UN Regulation No 95 – Uniform provisions concerning the approval of vehicles with regard to the protection of the occupants in the event of a lateral collision [2021/1861] | 62 |
| | * | UN Regulation No 137 – Uniform provisions concerning the approval of vehicles in the event of a frontal collision with focus on the restraint system [2021/1862] | 130 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

ACTS ADOPTED BY BODIES CREATED BY INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS

*

UN Regulation No 94 – Uniform provisions concerning the approval of vehicles with regard to the protection of the occupants in the event of a frontal collision [2021/1860]

1

*

UN Regulation No 95 – Uniform provisions concerning the approval of vehicles with regard to the protection of the occupants in the event of a lateral collision [2021/1861]

62

*

UN Regulation No 137 – Uniform provisions concerning the approval of vehicles in the event of a frontal collision with focus on the restraint system [2021/1862]

130

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
EXHIBIT 10









 




 




 




EXHIBIT

10.21




 




 




 




 




June 21, 2002




 




 




 




Securities and Exchange

Commission




450 Fifth Street, N.W.




Washington, D.C.  20549




 




Gentlemen:




 




We have read Item 4 of Form 8-K dated June 21, 2002,

of Technology Flavors & Fragrances, Inc. and are in agreement with the

statements contained in the second and third paragraphs. We agree with the

statements in the first paragraph, except that we have no basis to agree or

disagree with the statements related to the Audit Committee, Board of Directors

and BDO Seidman LLP. We have no basis to agree or disagree with the statements

made in the fourth paragraph.




 




 




 




                                                                                                    /s/

Ernst & Young LLP




 




 




1
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Damone TYSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-3245

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Filed December 18, 2017

Mark S. Bennett, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Akron, OH, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Valentine Cole Darker, Law Offices, Memphis, TN, for Defendant-Appellant

Damone Tyson, Pro Se

BEFORE: NORRIS, ROGERS, and THAPAR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Damone Tyson filed his notice of appeal one day late. Because the government has raised this issue, we must dismiss.

On February 8, 2017, the district court entered a criminal judgment against Da-mone Tyson. Since Tyson was incarcerated, he had until February 22 to mail his notice of appeal to the court. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1) (criminal defendant must file notice of appeal within fourteen days of the entry of the judgment being appealed), 4(c)(l)-(2) (providing that, where certain requirements are met, inmate’s notice of appeal is deemed filed on date of mailing), 26 (setting out deadline-calculation rules). He did so on February 23. One day late.

Although Rule 4(b) is not jurisdictional, “[w]e are required to dismiss late-filed criminal appeals when the government has raised the issue.” *United States v. Dominguez,*513 Fed.Appx. 458, 463 (6th Cir. 2013) (citing *United States v. Gaytan-Garza,*652 F.3d 680, 681 (6th Cir. 2011) (per curiam)). Here, the government raised the untimeliness issue, Tyson’s notice of appeal was indeed one day late, and Tyson has offered no response.

* * *

This appeal is therefore DISMISSED.
III

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 189

To designate Wednesday, November 1, 1995, as ‘‘National Drug Awareness

Day’’.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 31, 1995

Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. DOLE, Mr. D’AMATO, Mr. MURKOWSKI, Mr. HATCH, Mr. ABRAHAM, Mr. HELMS, Mr. PRESSLER, Mr.

BRYAN, Mr. THURMOND, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. NICKLES, Mr.

COVERDELL, and Mr. STEVENS) submitted the following resolution; which

was considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

To designate Wednesday, November 1, 1995, as ‘‘National

Drug Awareness Day’’.

Whereas illegal drug use among the youth of America is on

the increase;

Whereas illegal drug use is a major health problem, ruining

thousands of lives and costing billions of dollars;

Whereas illegal drug use contributes to crime on the streets

and in the homes of this nation;

Whereas national attention has turned from illegal drug use

to other issues, and support for sustained programs has

decreased;
2

SRES 189 ATS

Whereas public awareness and sustained programs are essential to combat an on-going social problem;

Whereas the answer to the illegal drug problem lies in America’s communities, with local people involved in grass

roots activities to keep their communities safe and drug

free, and in encouraging personal responsibility;

Whereas the annual Red Ribbon Celebration, coordinated by

the National Family Partnership and involving over

80,000,000 Americans in prevention activities each year,

commemorates the sacrifices of people on the front lines

in the war against illegal drug use;

Whereas substance abuse prevention, law enforcement, international narcotics control, and community awareness efforts contributes to preventing young people from starting illegal drug use; and

Whereas the American people have a continuing responsibility

to combat illegal drug use: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the Senate designate Wednesday, No2 vember 1, 1995, as ‘‘National Drug Awareness Day’’.

.Æ
**EXHIBIT32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**Pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)**

The undersignedexecutive officer of First Federal Bancshares of Arkansas, Inc. (the “Registrant”)hereby certifies that the Registrant’s Form 10-Q for the three and nine monthsended September 30, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the informationcontained therein fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Registrant.

 
|    |   | /s/Sherri R. Billings   |   |   |
|--------------|--------|-------------------------|--------|--------|
|         |   | Sherri R. Billings      |   |   |
|         |   | Chief Financial Officer |   |   |

 

Date: October 26, 2006

----
#### David W. SAWYER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director of the VA. D.O.C., Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-7019

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: December 19, 2017

Decided: December 21, 2017

David W. Sawyer, Appellant Pro Se. Rosemary Virginia Bourne, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

David W. Sawyer seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a. circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (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 *138jurists 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 petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-86, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Sawyer 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*
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 235 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 235

To proclaim the week of June 16 to June 22, 1996, as ``National Roller 
                            Coaster Week''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

               March 27 (legislative day, March 26), 1996

 Mr. Thurmond submitted the following resolution; which was considered 
                             and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
To proclaim the week of June 16 to June 22, 1996, as ``National Roller 
                            Coaster Week''.

Whereas the roller coaster is a unique form of fun, enjoyed by millions of 
        Americans, as well as people all over the world;
Whereas roller coasters have been providing fun since the 15th century;
Whereas, in 1885, an American named Phillip Hinckle invented a steam-powered 
        chain lift to hoist coasters to new heights and new downhill speeds;
Whereas advances in technology and a renewed interest in leisure and recreation 
        have meant a resurgence for roller coasters;
Whereas engineers working with computers have been able to create the safest, 
        most thrilling rides ever;
Whereas there are an estimated 500 roller coasters worldwide, and more than 
        fifty new projects underway in 1996; and
Whereas the world's oldest existing roller coaster, Leap-The-Dips, is located at 
        Lakemont Park in Altoona, Pennsylvania, and is currently being restored: 
        Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate proclaims the week of June 16 through 
June 22, 1996, as ``National Roller Coaster Week.''
                                 <all>
```
#### Mary C. RANDALL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Richard M. TIERNEY, CPCU, ACI Branch Manager; Michael C. Pedersen, Amica Adjuster, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-1881

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: January 18, 2018

Decided: January 22, 2018

*193Mary C. Randall, Appellant Pro Se. Brandon R. Gottschall, William Oglesby Sweeny, III, SWEENY, WINGATE & BARROW, PA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Mary C. Randall appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss her civil complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that Defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted and advised Randall that a failure to timely file specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation. *See Martin v. Duffy,*858 F.Sd 239, 245-46 (4th Cir. 2017), *petition for cert, filed,*— U.S.L.W.- (U.S. Sept. 25, 2017) (No. 17-539). Randall has waived appellate review by failing, after receiving proper notice, to file objections that were specific to the basis of the magistrate judge’s recommendation. Rather, she generally asserted that she was receiving unfair treatment in South Carolina courts.

In the absence of the requisite specific objections, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,

however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th

Cir. R. 32.1.

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has

determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the

determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Therefore, this case

is ordered submitted without oral argument.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

June 24, 2009

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

MONTGOMERY CARL AKERS, 

Plaintiff–Appellant, No. 08–1471

v. (D.C. No. 08–CV–02572–ZLW)

ZITA L. WEINSHIENK; BOYD N.

BOLAND; ROBERT M.

BLACKBURN; RON WILEY; JACK

FOX; CHRISTOPHER SYNSVOLL;

DIANA J. CRIST; MICHELLE

BOND; WENDY HEIM; RICK

MARTINEZ; C/O ROY; C/O

HERMAN; MARK COLLINS; TENA

SUDLOW; GEORGE KNOX,

(D. Colo.)

Defendants–Appellees.

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

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

This Bivens action was dismissed sua sponte by a district court judge

named as a defendant. Under 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(5), a judge must recuse when
-2-

named as a party to a proceeding. Accordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND

this case for reassignment to a judge not named as a party in the complaint. This

order neither makes nor implies any view about the appropriate disposition after

reassignment.

We GRANT Plaintiff's motion to proceed without prepayment of fees and

remind him of his continuing obligation to make partial payments until the filing

fee has been paid in full. We DENY all other pending motions.

Entered for the Court

Monroe G. McKay

Circuit Judge
MATERIALS NOT INCLUDED IN

AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE (AD) DOCKET

FAA-2013-0984

Docket Number

2013-SW-022-AD

Directorate Identifier

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in DMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket - NPRM

Eurocopter Emergency Alert Service Bulletin No. 76A001, Revision 0, dated April 22, 2013

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Office of the Regional Counsel,

Southwest Region

Rules Docket

2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663

Fort Worth, Texas 76137

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays.
----

----

I Information

Commission

----

COMMON CATALOGUE OF AGRICULTURAL PLANT SPECIES

third supplement to the 24th complete edition

(2004/C 146 A/01)

CONTENTS

Legend

List of agricultural species

I.   Beet

II.   Fodder plants

III.   Oil and fibre plants

IV.   Cereals

V.   Potatoes

----

LEGEND

----

(1)OJ C 68 A, 21.3.2006, p. 1. Catalogue as last amended by the second supplement (OJ C 93 A, 21.4.2006, p. 1).

(2)OJ L 193, 20.7.2002, p. 1. Directive as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 268, 18.10.2003, p. 1).

----

I

1.BETA VULGARIS L.

2.BETA VULGARIS L.

II

6.AGROSTIS CAPILLARIS L.

7.ALOPECURUS PRATENSIS L.

12.DACTYLIS GLOMERATA L.

13.FESTUCA ARUNDINACEA SCHREBER

14.FESTUCA OVINA L.

16.FESTUCA RUBRA L.

17.LOLIUM MULTIFLORUM LAM.

18.LOLIUM PERENNE L.

22.PHLEUM PRATENSE L.

26.POA PRATENSIS L.

32.LUPINUS ANGUSTIFOLIUS L.

35.MEDICAGO SATIVA L.

38.PISUM SATIVUM L. (PARTIM)

42.TRIFOLIUM PRATENSE L.

43.TRIFOLIUM REPENS L.

46.VICIA FABA L. (PARTIM)

48.VICIA SATIVA L.

52.PHACELIA TANACETIFOLIA BENTH.

53.RAPHANUS SATIVUS L. VAR. OLEIFORMIS PERS.

III

55.BRASSICA RAPA L. VAR. SILVESTRIS (LAM.) BRIGGS

57.BRASSICA NAPUS L. (PARTIM)

59.CANNABIS SATIVA L.

61.CARUM CARVI L.

63.HELIANTHUS ANNUUS L.

64.LINUM USITATISSIMUM L.

65.PAPAVER SOMNIFERUM L.

66.SINAPIS ALBA L.

67.GLYCINE MAX (L.) MERRILL

IV

68.AVENA SATIVA L.

69.HORDEUM VULGARE L.

70.ORYZA SATIVA L.

72.SECALE CEREALE L.

73.SORGHUM BICOLOR (L.) MOENCH

75.SORGHUM BICOLOR (L.) MOENCH × SORGHUM SUDANENSE (PIPER) STAPF.

76.× TRITICOSECALE WITTM.

77.TRITICUM AESTIVUM L. EMEND. FIORI ET PAOL.

78.TRITICUM DURUM DESF.

80.ZEA MAYS L.

V

81.SOLANUM TUBEROSUM L.

----
No. D-2643.

#### In re Disbarment of Dorny.

Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 566 U. S. 932.]
No. D-2641.

#### In re Disbarment of Frohling.

Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see 566 U. S. 932.]
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Elio DIAZ-DIAZ, also known as Jose Torres-Torres, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-40515 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed January 8, 2018

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

Elio Diaz-Diaz, Pro Se

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Elio Diaz-Diaz has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Diaz-Diaz has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. According*198ly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cm. R. 47,5.4.