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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000817161
<NAME> ALARIS MEDICAL, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          22,180
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   80,112
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (3,270)
<INVENTORY>                                     79,736
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               205,520
<PP&E>                                         131,188
<DEPRECIATION>                                (64,578)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 598,732
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           84,190
<BONDS>                                        524,922
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           593
<OTHER-SE>                                    (28,130)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   598,732
<SALES>                                         91,277
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                91,277
<CGS>                                           48,714
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   48,714
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                35,966
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,315
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,696)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,500)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,196)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,196)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.09)


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8603 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8603

    To require the Securities and Exchange Commission to revise the 
  definition of a qualifying investment to include an equity security 
  issued by a qualifying portfolio company, whether acquired directly 
  from the company or in a secondary acquisition, for purposes of the 
exemption from registration for venture capital fund advisers under the 
        Investment Advisers Act of 1940, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 16, 2020

    Mr. Hollingsworth (for himself and Mr. McAdams) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial 
                                Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To require the Securities and Exchange Commission to revise the 
  definition of a qualifying investment to include an equity security 
  issued by a qualifying portfolio company, whether acquired directly 
  from the company or in a secondary acquisition, for purposes of the 
exemption from registration for venture capital fund advisers under the 
        Investment Advisers Act of 1940, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Developing and Empowering our 
Aspiring Leaders Act of 2020''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

    Not later than the end of the 180-day period beginning on the date 
of the enactment of this Act, the Securities and Exchange Commission 
shall--
            (1) revise the definition of a qualifying investment under 
        paragraph (c) of section 275.203(l)-1 of title 17, Code of 
        Federal Regulations, to include an equity security issued by a 
        qualifying portfolio company, whether acquired directly from 
        the company or in a secondary acquisition; and
            (2) revise paragraph (a) of such section to require, as a 
        condition of a private fund qualifying as a venture capital 
        fund under such paragraph, that the qualifying investments of 
        the private fund are predominantly qualifying investments that 
        were acquired directly from a qualifying portfolio company.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT
32.2




Certification
Pursuant to


18
U.S.C. Section 1350,


as
Adopted Pursuant to


Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002




In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Telestone Technologies Corporation (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the
Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Yu Xiaoli,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 result of operations of the Company.




Dated: May
17, 2010




By:
                  /s/ Yu XiaoliName:
                  Yu
      XiaoliTitle:
                  Chief
      Financial Officer (Principal Financial
Officer)
# C_2021357EN.01002901.xml

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/29

---

Action brought on 13 July 2021 — Gioioso v EUIPO — Maxi Di (MARE GIOIOSO di Sebastiano IMPORT EXPORT)

(Case T-423/21)

(2021/C 357/44)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Sebastiano Gioioso (Fasano, Italy) (represented by: F. Amati, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Maxi Di Srl (Belfiore, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark MARE GIOIOSO di Sebastiano IMPORT EXPORT — Application for registration No 18 024 185

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 May 2021 in Case R 1650/2020-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the opposition proceedings and the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the opposition proceedings and the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

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

     The following certification accompanies the issuer's Annual Report on Form
10-K and is not filed as provided in SEC Release Nos. 33-8212, 34-47551 dated
March 21, 2003:

     In connection with the Annual Report of Torch Energy Royalty Trust (the
"Trust") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002,as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Bruce
L. Bisson, Vice President of Wilmington Trust Company, the trustee of the Trust,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

     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 Trust.

     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to the Torch Energy Royalty Trust and will be retained by the
Torch Energy Royalty Trust and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.

Dated: April 14, 2003


                                               /s/ Bruce L. Bisson
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Bruce L. Bisson, Vice President
#### Jatinder SINGH, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 16-71734

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 18, 2017 *

Filed December 21, 2017

*933OIL, John M. McAdams, Jr., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Jatinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. *Najmabadi v. Holder,*597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Singh’s motion to reopen as untimely, where he filed the motion more than two years after his final administrative order of removal, failed to establish the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, and failed to present sufficient evidence of materially changed country conditions in India to qualify for the regulatory exception to the filing deadline. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2)-(3); *Avagyan v. Holder,*646 F.3d 672, 679 (9th Cir. 2011) (equitable tolling is available to a petitioner who is prevented from timely filing a motion to reopen due to deception, fraud or error, as long as the petitioner exercises due diligence in discovering such circumstances); *Najmabadi,*597 F.3d at 988-90 (new evidence lacked materiality).

In light of our disposition, we do not reach Singh’s remaining contentions regarding the alleged ineffectiveness of prior counsel or eligibility for relief. *See Simeonov v. Ashcroft,*371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach).

Singh has waived his contention that the BIA ignored evidence submitted with his motion. *See Rizk v. Holder,*629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011) (issues not raised in an opening brief are waived).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**Exhibit 31.2**
  **CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER UNDER SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT**
   I, William J. Bush, certify that:
  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of International Microcomputer Software, Inc;
  2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does 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;
  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;
  4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining internal controls for the registrant and we have:
  a. Designed such internal controls to ensure that material information relating to the registrant and its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the periods in which this quarterly report is being prepared;
  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's internal controls of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
  c. Presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the internal controls based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date.
  5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
  a. All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and
  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls.
  6. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.
   **Date: November 10, 2004**
  By: /s/ William J. Bush
 William J. Bush
 Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting Officer)
    33
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Ramon CHECO, Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-40297 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

February 23, 2018

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

Jose Ramon Checo, Pro Se

*350Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Ramon Checo 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), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Checo 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. 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.

*

**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.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.3

                       Consent of Independent Accountants

    We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Amendment No. 1
to Registration Statement on Form S-4 of our report dated April 16, 2002
relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement
schedule of Hanover Compressor Company, which appears in Hanover Compressor
Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2001. We
also consent to the reference to us under the heading "Experts" in such
Registration Statement.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Houston, Texas
May 24, 2002
# C_2021357EN.01002902.xml

| 6.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/29

---

Action brought on 14 July 2021 — Aldi Einkauf v EUIPO — Cantina Sociale Tollo (ALDIANO)

(Case T-429/21)

(2021/C 357/45)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Aldi Einkauf SE & Co. oHG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: C. Fürsen, M. Minkner and A. Starcke, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cantina Sociale Tollo SCA (Tollo, Italy)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ALDIANO — European Union trade mark No 10 942 274

Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 May 2021 in Case R 1074/2020-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 64(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 64(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification Pursuant To Section 1350 OfChapter 63 Of U.S.C.**

**As Adopted Pursuant To Section 906 Of TheSarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002**

 

 

In connection with the QuarterlyReport of The Immune Response Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for theperiod ending September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission, accompanied by this written statement (the “Report”), I, John N.Bonfiglio, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to § 1350of Chapter 63 of 18 U.S.C., as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated: November 14, 2003 |   |                     |   |
|--------------------------|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|                     |   | /s/ John N.  Bonfiglio   |   |
|                     |   | John N.  Bonfiglio       |   |
|                     |   | Chief  Executive Officer |   |

 

----
#### Mario AKOTHE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden BEAR, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-6221

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Filed December 27, 2017

(D.C. No. 5:17-CV-00693-D) (W.D. Oklahoma)

Mario Akothe, Pro Se

Before KELLY, MURPHY, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *

Scott M. Matheson, Jr. Circuit Judge

The district court denied Oklahoma state prisoner Mario Akothe’s application for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on the ground that it was untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). To appeal that ruling, *569Mr. Akothe must obtain a certificate of appealability (“COA”) from this court. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (requiring a COA to appeal “the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court”). To obtain a COA, he must show “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *accord Dulworth v. Jones,*496 F.3d 1133, 1137 (10th Cir. 2007).

Mr. Akothe does not address timeliness in his brief requesting a COA. Although we liberally construe Mr. Akothe’s filings because he represents himself, we do not act as his advocate. *Yang v. Archuleta,*525 F.3d 925, 927 n.1 (10th Cir. 2008). Without an argument from Mr. Akothe as to why reasonable jurists would debate the district court’s ruling, we must deny a COA and dismiss this matter. We also deny Mr. Akothe’s motion to proceed *informa pau-peris,*

*

 This order 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.
#### COM. v. YOUNG, W.

1093 WDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/25/2017

CP-05-CR-0000347-2014 (Bedford)

Affirmed — Application to Withdraw as Counsel Granted
IB

Calendar No. 54

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 32

[Report No. 105–19]

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 12, 1997

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural

Resources

MAY 16, 1997

Reported by Mr. MURKOWSKI, without amendment

JOINT RESOLUTION

To consent to certain amendments enacted by the Legislature

of the State of Hawaii to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That, as required by section 4 of the Act entitled ‘‘An
2

HJ 32 RS

1 Act to provide for the admission of the State of Hawaii

2 into the Union’’, approved March 18, 1959 (73 Stat. 4),

3 the United States consents to the following amendments

4 to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920, adopted

5 by the State of Hawaii in the manner required for State

6 legislation:

7 (1) Act 339 of the Session Laws of Hawaii,

8 1993.

9 (2) Act 37 of the Session Laws of Hawaii,

10 1994.

Passed the House of Representatives March 11,

1997.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.

Calendar No. 54

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 32

[Report No. 105–19]

JOINT RESOLUTION

To consent to certain amendments enacted by the

ian Homes Commission Act, 1920.Legislature of the State of Hawaii to the HawaiMAY 16, 1997

Reported without amendment
No. 11-10215.

#### Phernetton *v.*Crown Point Police Department.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.