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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          17,115
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  121,198
<ALLOWANCES>                                     8,352
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               150,082
<PP&E>                                         276,832
<DEPRECIATION>                                  27,912
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,649,697
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          147,698
<BONDS>                                      1,598,755
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          262,368
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,796
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,463,358
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,649,697
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               517,467
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  298,649
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               157,913
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 5,916
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             110,545
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (52,536)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,579
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (52,736)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (7,305)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (60,041)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20
- 021 0 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,
v. EDWARD HAROL HUGGLER ,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including November 6 , 20 20 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 1 2020

10/01/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0210
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Mark Christensen, Appellant.

[52 NYS3d 234]

*1484Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Breslin, J.), entered October 1, 2014 in Albany County, which denied defendant’s application for resentencing pursuant to the Drug Law Reform Act.

In 1991, defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, a class A-II felony, and was sentenced to four years to life in prison. In 1995, he was released to parole supervision. Thereafter, he was convicted of driving while intoxicated and was sentenced to 1 to 3 years in prison. In July 2014, while he was reincarcerated, he made a pro se application to be resentenced on his 1991 A-II drug felony conviction under the Drug Law Reform Act of 2009 *(see*L 2009, ch 56, as codified in CPL 440.46). Supreme Court considered defendant’s application under the Drug Law Reform Act of 2005 *(see*L 2005, ch 643 [hereinafter 2005 DLRA]), the statute applicable to A-II drug felony convictions, and found that because defendant was to be considered for parole in January 2016, which was within three years of the date of his application, he was ineligible for resentencing *(see People v Mills,*11 NY3d 527, 534 [2008]). Consequently, the court summarily denied the motion and defendant now appeals.

Significantly, we note that during the pendency of this appeal, defendant was released from state custody and is now under parole supervision for his 1991 A-II drug felony conviction. As such, he “no longer qualifies for 2005 DLRA relief for that particular conviction” *(People v Mills,*11 NY3d at 537; *accord People v Bustamante,*124 AD3d 1132, 1133 [2015], *lv denied*25 NY3d 1070 [2015]). Defendant’s alternative claim that the 1991 sentence is harsh and excessive is not properly before us, as his appeal is from the order denying resentencing and not the original judgment of conviction *(see People v Bustamante,*124 AD3d at 1133). Accordingly, we affirm Supreme Court’s order.

Peters, P.J., Garry, Rose, Devine and Aarons, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the order is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5


<LEGEND>
Exhibit 27.1 Financial Data Schedule

This schedule  contains summary financial  information  extracted from financial
statements and Related Footnotes of Kids Stuff, Inc.

</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    dec-31-1999
<CASH>                                  859,431
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                           257,574
<ALLOWANCES>                            0
<INVENTORY>                             2,045,005
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        4,307,696
<PP&E>                                  3,021,431
<DEPRECIATION>                          206,652
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          8,919,985
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   3,136,013
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             5,460
<COMMON>                                3,513
<OTHER-SE>                              3,776,877
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            8,919,985
<SALES>                                 16,729,951
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        16,729,951
<CGS>                                   10,051,665
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           15,020,217
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        1,603,808
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      132,649
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         48,059
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     48,059
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                            48,059
<EPS-BASIC>                             (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                           (.05)


</TABLE>
No. 10-5172.

#### Montgomery Blair Sibley, Petitioner v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

562 U.S. 806, 131 S. Ct. 253,

178 L. Ed. 2d 7,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7763.

October 4, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and petition submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1, 113 S. Ct. 397, 121 L. Ed. 2d 305 (1992) (per curiam).

Same case below, 990 A.2d 483.
NJDEP HZSAMPLE Error Report

File: C:\Datamgt\NJ EDD\cwk\DGW 2H10\PFOA\HZSAMPLE Date: 03/21/2011 16:23 Errors#: (0)

No HZSAMPLE errors have been identified!
2018-0059.

#### State ex rel. Miller v. Dewey.

In Mandamus and Prohibition.
Exhibit 32.1

 

**                                                THE MONARCH CEMENT COMPANY                                                   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 The Monarch Cement Company (the"Company") onForm 10-Qfor the quarter ended June 30,2008, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the datehereof(the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the dateindicatedbelow, hereby certifiespursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuanttoSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

(1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to The MonarchCement Company and will be retained by The MonarchCement Company and furnishedto the Securitiesand Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 

Dated:  August 8, 2008

|   |   |  /s/ Walter H. Wulf, Jr.                 Walter H. Wulf, Jr.    President and     Chairman of the Board 
                                                   

 

 

  |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### In the Matter of Michelle C., Respondent, v Jerome Alvin M., Appellant.

[67 NYS3d 12]

Order, Family Court, New York County (Monica Shulman, J.), entered on or about January 3, 2017, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted petitioner mother’s motion for modification of a prior order of visitation and denied respondent father visitation with the parties’ child at his correctional facility, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Substantial evidence supports the determination that visitation at the father’s correctional facility would be detrimental to the child’s welfare and against the best interests of the child *(Matter of Ronald C. v Sherry B.,*144 AD3d 545, 546 [1st Dept 2016], *lv dismissed*29 NY3d 965 [2017]). Since the entry of the prior order of visitation, the father was convicted of attempted murder, assault, criminal possession of a weapon and criminal use of a firearm and was sentenced to a maximum of 30 years’ imprisonment. The now four-year-old child was born with se*464vere special needs, including hydrocephalus and pervasive special developmental delays. The child’s medical condition causes him to suffer from seizures as well as substantive behavioral issues, including tantrums and self-injurious behavior. The child also has physical limitations, and wears braces on both legs to assist in his ability to walk.

Based on the father’s extensive prison sentence, the child’s severe special needs and the father’s lack of awareness and understanding of the child’s special needs and behavioral issues, the distance of six hours transport each way to the correctional facility, with the father’s aunt with whom the child has no relationship, is not in the child’s best interest *(see Matter of Robert SS. v Ashley TT.,*143 AD3d 1193, 1194 [3d Dept 2016]; *Matter of Leonard v Pasternack-Walton,*80 AD3d 1081, 1082 [3d Dept 2011]).

The court properly credited the testimony of the mother, pediatrician and social worker regarding the child’s condition, including that any sensory change in the child’s environment would cause him distress and trigger extreme behavioral issues and the inability to control his impulses, including tantrums and self-injurious behavior *(Matter of Teixeria v Teixeria,*205 AD2d 545, 546 [2d Dept 1994]). Thus, the court correctly modified the order of visitation to allow the father continued and regular contact with the child through letter writing, telephone communication and video communication, including requiring the mother to update the father as to the child’s medical and educational progress and to assist the child in returning letters to the father on a monthly basis.

Concur— Tom, J.P., Renwick, Gische, Oing and Singh, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joshua A. Montemaro, Appellant.

[768 NYS2d 899]

— Appeal from a judgment of Ontario County Court (Doran, J.), entered February 20, 2002, convicting defendant after a jury trial of, inter alia, assault in the third degree (two counts).

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because defense counsel prevented defendant from exercising his right to testify at trial. That contention, however, rests primarily on matters outside the record and thus is not properly raised on direct appeal *(see People v Bennett,*284 AD2d 338 [2001], *lv denied*96 NY2d 898 [2001]; *People v Martin,*271 AD2d 459 [2000], *lv denied*95 NY2d 868 [2000]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Pine, Hurlbutt and Kehoe, JJ.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Natrol, Inc.(the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2004, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on March 15, 2005 (the “Report”), theundersigned, in the capacity and on the date listed below, hereby certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

 

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d), as applicable, of the Securities 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.

 

This Certification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,and Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K promulgatedunder the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and shall not be deemed part ofthe Report or “filed” for any purpose whatsoever, nor shall it be deemedincorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 orthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

 

 
| Date: July 21, 2005 |                                                         |
|--------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|
|                     |   */s/  Elliott Balbert*                           | * * |
|                     |   Elliott Balbert                                  |
|                     |   President, Chief Executive  Officer and Chairman |
|                     |   (Principal Executive Officer)                    |

 

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Damien Mills, Appellant.

[50 NYS3d 271]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael R. Sonberg, J.), rendered September 30, 2014, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, and sentencing him to a term of five years’ probation, unanimously affirmed.

*560Defendant’s challenge to the imposition of an enhanced sentence is unpreserved, and was expressly waived, when he declined the court’s offer to conduct a hearing on the issue of whether defendant violated a term of the plea agreement *(see People v Livingston,*96 AD3d 688 [1st Dept 2012], *lv denied*19 NY3d 1027 [2012]), and we decline to review this issue in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, the record supports the court’s finding that defendant was untruthful with the Department of Probation about the underlying facts of the crime to which he pleaded guilty, thus violating the explicit condition of the plea agreement requiring him to truthfully discuss the facts of his crime during the presentence interview *(see id.).*

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Renwick, Moskowitz, Fein-man and Kapnick, JJ.
2017-1044.

#### West v. Wainwright.

In Habeas Corpus. Reported at 150 Ohio St.3d 1450, 2017-Ohio-8136, 83 N.E.3d 937. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.

O’Neill, J., not participating.
#### In the Matter of Suzanne Varriale, Appellant, v City of New York et al., Respondents.

[49 NYS3d 298]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lynn R. Kotler, J.), entered November 10, 2015, which, after a hearing, denied the petition to vacate the determination of respondent New York City Board of Education, dated July 7, 2014, which terminated petitioner’s employment as a tenured school teacher, and dismissed the proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although petitioner was a thirteen-year employee with no prior disciplinary history, and no charges had ever previously been preferred against her, in light of the seriousness of the allegations herein, the penalty of termination was not shocking to one’s sense of fairness *(see Altsheler v Board of Educ. of Great Neck Union Free School Dist.,*62 NY2d 656, 657 [1984]). The record showed that petitioner strayed from her duties as a *651school teacher by deliberately escalating a confrontation with a student by yelling expletives and threatening him with violence. Even after security personnel defused the situation by removing the student from the classroom, petitioner subsequently confronted him again, later that day, yelling at least six times that her husband, an armed police officer, would kill him. Petitioner then brought her husband to school the following morning, to the student’s scheduled class in the gymnasium, although the student, having been suspended from school, was not there *(compare Matter of Riley v City of New York,*84 AD3d 442 [1st Dept 2011]). Further, as noted by the hearing officer, had the student been in class that morning, the possibility of violence occurring was very real, and petitioner conveyed a message to other students that she could not rely upon school authorities to control threats of violence against a teacher by a student.

Petitioner also showed no remorse nor appreciation for the seriousness of her conduct (see *e.g. Matter of Villada v City of New York,*126 AD3d 598, 599 [1st Dept 2015]) to support a finding that she would not engage in similar conduct if faced with such circumstances in the future. Petitioner declined to take the stand, and thus, the hearing officer was permitted to draw the strongest inference against her permitted by the record *(Matter of Carangelo v Ambach,*130 AD2d 898, 900 [3d Dept 1987], *appeal denied*70 NY2d 609 [1987]).

Concur — Tom, J.P., Moskowitz, Feinman, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           29923
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1492423
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     570549
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2287975
<PP&E>                                         1001571
<DEPRECIATION>                                  228543
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3480777
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2962498
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       1076473
<OTHER-SE>                                   (1184888)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   3480777
<SALES>                                        1229784
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1229784
<CGS>                                           673075
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   673075
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                561540
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (4831)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (4831)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (4831)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.00)
        

</TABLE>
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 on Form 20-F of Elbit Systems Ltd.
(the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, Joseph Ackerman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to sec. 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, as amended; and
                 (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
         all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations
         of the Company.




Date: June 14, 2004

                                             /s/ Joseph Ackerman
                                             -------------------
                                             Joseph Ackerman
                                             Chief Executive Officer