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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                                          0000818674                       
<NAME>                                         Intellicall, Inc. 
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                    1
<CASH>                                         2,017
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  15,669
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (5,059)
<INVENTORY>                                     5,669
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               19,733
<PP&E>                                          8,184
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (6,621)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 28,874
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           6,788
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         1
<COMMON>                                           98
<OTHER-SE>                                     11,281
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   28,874
<SALES>                                         3,321
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               10,849
<CGS>                                           2,557
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   9,569
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                2,460
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   59
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                390
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,168)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,168)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,168)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.12)
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.1



            CONSENT OF REGISTERED INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

First Montauk Financial Corp.

We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  in the  Company's  previously  filed
Registration  Statement on Form S-8 (No.  333-123066 filed March 1, 2005) of our
report dated March 18, 2005, relating to the consolidated  financial  statements
and the related  financial  statement  schedule of First Montauk Financial Corp.
and  Subsidiaries  included  in this Form 10-K for the year ended  December  31,
2004.



/s/ Lazar Levine & Felix LLP
-------------------------------------
LAZAR LEVINE & FELIX LLP
Morristown, New Jersey
March 31, 2005
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-60348 

Conference Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

TOMMY HARRIS,

 Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:94CR106-S

- - - - - - - - - -

March 1, 1996

Before GARWOOD, JONES, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Tommy Harris appeals his sentence, arguing that it was

"excessive, unfair, and plainly unreasonable" for the district

court to depart upwardly from the recommended guideline range

based on his prior criminal record, when that criminal record was

used to 1) determine the crime itself, possession of a firearm by

a convicted felon, 2) establish his base offense level under

U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a), and 3) calculate his criminal history

category under § 4A1.1. Harris's argument is unavailing. The 
No. 95-60348

-2-

Sentencing Guidelines permit consideration of Harris's prior

felony convictions in calculating both his offense level and

criminal history category. See United States v. Hawkins, 69 F.3d 

11, 13-15 (5th Cir. 1995), petition for cert. filed, (U.S. Jan.

30, 1996) (No. 95-7703). The district court's decision to impose

a sentence in excess of the recommended guideline range was

warranted based on Harris's egregious criminal history. See

United States v. Laury, 985 F.2d 1293, 1310-11 (5th Cir. 1993). 

AFFIRMED.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KY LAY LUONG, Petitioner,
v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. No. 08-74503 Agency No. A022-102-119
MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Argued and Submitted November 1, 2010 Pasadena, California Before: SCHROEDER, TALLMAN and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Ky Lay Luong petitions for review of his removal order and the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) denial of his applications for relief from removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we grant the petition for review. The parties are familiar with the facts of the case so we do not repeat them here. Luong cannot be removed on the basi s of his 1986 conviction, the sole basis 

# FILED
DEC 28 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 alleged in his amended Notice to Appear. Ledezma-Galicia v. Holder , 599 F.3d 1055, 1075 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that “8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) does not apply to convictions . . . that occurred pr ior to November 18, 1988.”). In addition, § 1252(d) does not foreclose his claim. Garcia-Ramirez v. Gonzales , 423 F.3d 935, 938 (9th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (“ Retroactivity challenges to immigration laws implicate legitimate due process consid erations that need not be exhausted in administrative proceedings because the BI A cannot give relief on such claims.”). Because Luong is not removable as charged, we do not consider Luong’s claim regarding his applications for relief. We leave to the government whether to institute new removal proceedings based on Luong’s other convictions. PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 55 (Friday, March 21, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 13540]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-7217]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[FRL-5800-1]


Arizona: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management 
Program Revisions; Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Immediate final rule; correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency published in the Federal 
Register of March 7, 1997, the authorization of Arizona's Hazardous 
Waste Management Program Revisions under the Resource Conservation and 
Recovery Act (RCRA). The heading in that published version stated 
``Nevada: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management 
Program Revisions.'' This was a typographical error and should have 
read ``Arizona: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management 
Program Revisions.'' This document corrects that error and consequently 
extends the public comment period and effective dates.

DATES: Final authorization for Arizona is effective May 20, 1997 unless 
EPA publishes a prior Federal Register action withdrawing this 
immediate final rule. All comments on Arizona's program revision 
application must be received by the close of business April 21, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa McClain-Vanderpool, U.S. EPA 
Region IX (WST-3), 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: 
415/744-2086.

    Dated: March 14, 1997.
Rich Vaille,
Acting Director, Waste Management Division.
[FR Doc. 97-7217 Filed 3-20-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
# table35
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

         In connection with the Annual Report of FIRST MONTAUK FINANCIAL CORP.
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Victor K. Kurylak, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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.




/s/ Victor K. Kurylak
------------------------------------------
Victor K. Kurylak
President and Chief Executive Officer
April 16, 2007
S95A0506.

#### LYONS v. THE STATE.

(456 SE2d 585)

Fletcher, Justice.

James Stacey Lyons was convicted of murder and possession of a *408firearm in the shooting death of Dwayne Palmer.1 He was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder and five years for possession, to be served consecutively. He appeals and we affirm.

Decided May 15, 1995.

*Richard O. Ward,*for appellant.

*Daniel J. Craig, District Attorney, Charles R. Sheppard, Assistant District Attorney,*for appellee.

Lyons and three other men were looking for Palmer and drove to a convenience store where he was shopping. Lyons, who was armed, and another man remained in the car as guards while the other two exited the car, fired into the store, and shot Palmer when he left the store.2

1. After reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s determination of guilt, we conclude that a rational trier of fact could have found Lyons guilty of the crimes charged. *Jackson v. Virginia,*443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).

2. Lyons contends that the trial court erred in admitting evidence that Palmer had punched Lyons a few hours before the murder and that the court failed to give limiting instructions regarding a prior fight between Lyons’ codefendant and Palmer. Lyons, however, failed to object to this evidence or the court’s instructions, and therefore, we will not consider these issues on appeal. *O’Donnell v. State,*258 Ga. 782, 785 (374 SE2d 729) (1989).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

1

 The crimes occurred on August 9, 1991. Lyons was convicted and sentenced on April 24,1992. Lyons filed a motion for new trial on June 19, 1992, which the trial court denied on November 16,1994. Lyons filed a notice of appeal on November 18,1994. The case was docketed in this court on December 21,1994 and submitted for decision without oral argument on February 13, 1995.

2

 Lyons was tried jointly with Kevin Prince, who fired the fatal shots. This court has previously affirmed Prince’s conviction. *Prince v. State,*264 Ga. 867 (452 SE2d 497) (1995).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                               7
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       81
<ALLOWANCES>                                         5
<INVENTORY>                                          9
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   132
<PP&E>                                             358
<DEPRECIATION>                                     210
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     658
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              146
<BONDS>                                            343
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                          55
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       658
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  1152
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      919
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    36
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     1
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  31
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     20
<INCOME-TAX>                                         7
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 13
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        13
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .53
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .53
        

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-50224 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSÉ RICARDO RUIZ, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-92-CR-58-ALL

- - - - - - - - - - October 23, 1997 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * José Ricardo Ruiz, federal prisoner #12399-080, appeals from the district court’s denial of his “motion to dismiss,” which is construed by this court as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See In re Tolliver , 97 F.3d 89, 90 (5th Cir. 1996). Because Ruiz neither requested not obtained the required certification from this court to file a successive § 2255 motion, the district court should not have accepted Ruiz’s motion for filing. See § 2255. The district court’s denial of Ruiz’s “motion to dismiss” wasNo. 97-50224 -2- therefore not error. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 2217

_____________________________
M ICHAEL A NTHONY P ADGETT , Former Husband
, Appellant,

v.

R ETHA A NN P ADGETT , Former Wife
, Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Baker County

. Stanley H. Griffis
, III, Judge

. May 2, 2019

P ER C URIAM

. Michael Padgett (the former husband) appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition to modify his alimony obligation to Retha Padgett (the for mer wife), arguing that the evidence does not support the trial court’s finding that he was capable of earning additional income. We cannot determine whether the trial court’s finding was supported by the evidence due to the lack of transcript in the recor d on appeal, and must affirm. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee , 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) (“W ithout a record of the trial proceedings, the appellate court can not properly resolve the underlying factual2 issues so as to conclude that the trial court ’ s judgment is not supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory.”).

A FFIRMED

. B.L. T HOMAS , C.J., and K ELSEY and W INOKUR , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion unde r Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Joseph L. Mannikko of Mannikko & Baris, Macclenny
, for Appellant.

No appearance for Appellee.
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Bitstream Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC) on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his or her 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 (the Exchange Act); and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |                                                                         |  |                  
|------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | -----------------
|SIGNATURE           |  | TITLE                                                                   |  | DATE             
|                    |  |                                                                        
|/s/ Anna M. Chagnon |  | President and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)      |  | November 14, 2007
|Anna M. Chagnon     |  |                                                                        
|                    |  |                                                                        
|/s/ James P. Dore   |  | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer) |  | November 14, 2007
|James P. Dore       |  |                                                                        

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to liability under that section. This certification shall not be deemed incorporated by reference in any filing under the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form with the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.
ACCEPTED

12-14-00163-cr

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS

8/20/2015 1:30:50 PM

CATHY LUSK

CLERK

 FILED IN 12th COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 8/20/2015 1:30:50 PM CATHY S. LUSK Clerk
No. 12-5511.

#### Blanton *v.*Bondi, Attorney General of Florida, et al.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 57 (Tuesday, March 25, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 14181]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-7384]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary
[Order 97-3-25; Dockets OST-96-1676]


Application of U.S. Caljet Airlines, Inc. d/b/a Caljet Airlines 
for New Certificate Authority

AGENCY: Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of order to show cause.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation is directing all interested 
persons to show cause why it should not issue an order (1) finding U.S. 
Caljet Airlines, Inc. d/b/a Caljet Airlines fit, willing, and able, and 
(2) awarding it a certificate of public convenience and necessity to 
engage in interstate scheduled air transportation of persons, property, 
and mail.

DATES: Persons wishing to file objections should do so no later than 
April 8, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Objections and answers to objections should be filed in 
Dockets OST-96-1868 and addressed to the Department of Transportation 
Dockets (SVC-120.30, Room PL-401), U.S. Department of Transportation, 
400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590 and should be served 
upon the parties listed in Attachment A to the order.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mrs. Kathy Lusby Cooperstein, Air 
Carrier Fitness Division (X-56, Room 6401), U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590, (202) 
366-2337.

    Dated: March 18, 1997.
Charles A. Hunnicut,
Assistant Secretary for International and Aviation Affairs.
[FR Doc. 97-7384 Filed 3-24-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
No. 12-5475.

#### Stewart *v.*Parris.

Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.
Dakota Territory Resources Corp.: Exhibit 4.2 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com


    

    Exhibit 4.2

    Description of Capital Stock

    Common Stock

    The holders of common stock are entitled to one vote per share with respect to all matters required by law to be submitted to stockholders. The holders of common stock have the sole right to vote. The common stock does not have any cumulative voting, preemptive, subscription or conversion rights. Election of directors requires the affirmative vote of a plurality of shares represented at a meeting, and other general stockholder action (other than an amendment to our Articles of Incorporation) requires the affirmative vote of a majority of shares represented at a meeting in which a quorum is represented. The outstanding shares of common stock are validly issued, fully paid and non-assessable.

    The holders of common stock are entitled to receive dividends, if declared by our Board, out of funds legally available. In the event of liquidation, dissolution or winding up of the affairs of the Company, the holders of common stock are entitled to share ratably in all assets remaining available for distribution to them after payment or provision for all liabilities.

    The authorized but unissued shares of our common stock are available for future issuance without stockholder approval. These additional shares may be used for a variety of corporate purposes, including future offerings to raise additional capital, corporate acquisitions and employee benefit plans. The existence of authorized but unissued shares of common stock may enable our Board to issue shares of stock to persons friendly to existing management, which may deter or frustrate a takeover of the Company.