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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
INCLUDED IN SUCH REPORT.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000839437
<NAME> AMFAC/JMB HAWAII, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           8,736
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,180
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     56,808
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                73,274
<PP&E>                                         351,640
<DEPRECIATION>                                  33,856
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 483,605
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           30,791
<BONDS>                                        321,298
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                   (153,571)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   483,605
<SALES>                                         96,943
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                97,406
<CGS>                                           89,267
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  125,096
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,222
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              26,297
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (55,209)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    12,043
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (34,166)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (34,166)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (34.2)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (34.2)
        


</TABLE>
**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 Bakers Footwear Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form10-Q for the period ended July 29, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, Lawrence J. Spanley, Jr., Chief Financial Officer, Executive VicePresident, Treasurer and Secretary of the Company, certify, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) and Section1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and     (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.        Date: September 12, 2006 /s/  Lawrence L. Spanley, Jr.    Lawrence L. Spanley, Jr.    Chief Financial Officer, Executive Vice President,
* 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. 95-50676 Summary Calendar

MERCEDES FLORES,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Western District of Texas

April 5, 1996 Before GARWOOD, WIENER and PARKER, Circuit Judges. *

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff-appellant in this suit sought damages against the

United States under 26 U.S.C. § 7433. No other relief was sought.

The district court granted the motion to dismiss of defendantappellee the United States. The only issue plaintiff raises on

appeal concerns the year 1988 and the return for that year. We

affirm, essentially for the reasons stated in Part B of the

district court’s memorandum opinion and order. We note that this2

reasoning is equally applicable whether plaintiff’s claim relates

to “the innocent spouse defense” or the claim that plaintiff did

not sign or authorize the 1988 return.

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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-20554

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JESUS VASQUEZ-INIGEZ

Defendant-Appellant.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-00-CR-57-1

 

October 10, 2001

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges.*

Vasquez-Inigez filed a petition for a panel rehearing of our

opinion affirming his conviction for illegal reentry after

deportation, arguing that his sentence was improperly enhanced

based upon his prior conviction for driving while intoxicated.

Vasquez-Inigez’s offense level was increased by 16 levels

because his previous conviction was considered an aggravated

felony, based upon a previous decision of this Court that was later
1 243 F.3d 921 (5th Cir. 2001).

2 Id. at 927.

withdrawn. After the parties had submitted their briefs but before

we affirmed Vasquez-Inigez’s conviction, this Court held in United

States v. Chapa-Garza1 that driving while intoxicated is not an

aggravated felony under Section 2L1.2(b).2 Accordingly, his

petition for rehearing is GRANTED, his sentence is VACATED, and his

case is REMANDED for sentencing in accordance with Chapa-Garza.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                       6
<LEGEND>
     This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
1999 Form 10-K Balance  Sheets and  Statements of Operations and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                      1,000

<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                       JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                         DEC-31-1999
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>                     34,696
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>                    32,830
<RECEIVABLES>                                163
<ASSETS-OTHER>                                42
<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            33,035
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>                       0
<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>                        0
<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>                    160
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>                          160
<SENIOR-EQUITY>                                0
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>                       0
<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>                        222
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>                        222
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>                      0
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>                         0
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>                        0
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>                       0
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>                  (1,924)
<NET-ASSETS>                              32,875
<DIVIDEND-INCOME>                              0
<INTEREST-INCOME>                          2,062
<OTHER-INCOME>                               347
<EXPENSES-NET>                             1,312
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>                    1,097
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>                  (4,533)
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>                 13,636
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>                     10,200
<EQUALIZATION>                                 0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>                  1,964
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>                       0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>                      6,387
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>                        0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>                    0
<SHARES-REINVESTED>                            0
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>                     1,849
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>                        0
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>                      0
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>                        0
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>                     0
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>                        666
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<GROSS-EXPENSE>                            1,312
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>                      31,950
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>                     137.49
<PER-SHARE-NII>                             3.45
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>                    40.73
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>                           0
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>                  34.92
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>                       28.73
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>                       146.74
<EXPENSE-RATIO>                            0.041


</TABLE>
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

September 26, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
130828 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STAT E OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 130828 COA: 264819 Kent CC: 03-006445-FC MICHAEL ANGELO HAMBRICK, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e February 10, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

l0918 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 26, 2006

Clerk
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Malcolm Uriah HARRIS, Defendant/Appellant.

No. ED 106247

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.

FILED: December 18, 2018 Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied January 23, 2019 Application for Transfer Denied April 2, 2019

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: Ellen H. Flottman, Office of the State Public Defender, 1000 West Nifong, Bldg. 7, Ste. 100, Columbia, MO 65203.

ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT: Joshua D. Hawley, Attorney General, Garrick F. D. Aplin, Assistant Attorney General, P.O. Box 899, 221 West High Street, Jefferson City, MO 65102.

Before Philip M. Hess, P.J., Robert G. Dowd, Jr., J., and Mary K. Hoff, J.

*530*ORDER*

PER CURIAM

Malcolm Uriah Harris ("Defendant") appeals from the judgment upon his convictions following a jury trial for murder in the second degree in violation of Section 565.021 RSMo 20001 , armed criminal action in violation of Section 571.015, unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of Section 571.070, and tampering with physical evidence in violation of Section 575.100. Defendant was sentenced, respectively, to consecutive terms of imprisonment for life, thirty years, seven years, and four years. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

1

Unless otherwise indicated, all further statutory references are to RSMo 2000 as amended.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Minerva L. Rios, Respondent. La Prairie, Inc., Appellant; Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[719 NYS2d 718]

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 27, 1999, which assessed La Prairie, Inc. with additional unemployment insurance contributions based upon remuneration paid to claimant and those similarly situated.

La Prairie, Inc., a cosmetics distributor whose products are sold at department stores, challenges a determination of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruling that claimant and other similarly situated freelance makeup artists are its employees rather than independent contractors. The record reveals that claimant was hired by La Prairie to work at a department store makeup counter applying cosmetics to customers during a two-week sales promotion. Although claimant applied for the position at the department store, claimant’s wages were paid by La Prairie based upon the hours established by La Prairie and reflected in the time sheets that it required her to complete. Claimant was expected to notify La Prairie if she was unable to work on a particular day and was prohibited from choosing her own replacement. Under these circumstances, substantial evidence supports the Board’s conclusion that La Prairie exercised sufficient control over claimant to establish an employer-employee relationship *(see, Matter of Horne [Colonia, Inc.*— Hudacs], 188 AD2d 922; *Matter of Lucas [Yves Saint Laurent Parfums Corp.*— Hartnett], 161 AD2d 993). Although the department store directly supervised claimant’s daily activities, the Board could properly find that the department store was merely acting as La Prairie’s agent *(see, Matter of Lucas [Yves Saint Laurent Parfums Corp.*— Hartnett], *supra,*at 994; *see also, Matter of Furno [Panasonic Co.*— Roberts], 102 AD2d 937, 938, *lv denied*63 NY2d 610). While the record *682contains evidence that would support a contrary result, we must uphold the Board’s decision as supported by substantial evidence *(see, Matter of Concourse Ophthalmology Assocs. [Roberts],*60 NY2d 734, 736).

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Spain, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

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

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

 

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-QSBof United Wisconsin Grain Producers, LLC (the “Company”) for the quarter ended September 30,2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Barb Bontrager, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.             TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

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

 

 
|   | /s/ Barb  Bontrager           |
|--------|-------------------------------|
|   | Barb Bontrager                |
|   | Chief Financial Officer       |
|   | Dated: November 14, 2005 |

 

----
#### Edward Guinan et al., Appellants, v Suhak Lee, Respondent.

[719 NYS2d 117]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), entered November 30, 1999, which, upon an order of the same court dated October 26, 1999, denying their motion to set aside a jury verdict in favor of the defendant and against them and for judgment as a matter of law, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the order is vacated, the verdict is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a trial on the issue of damages.

The plaintiffs were injured when their vehicle, which had stopped for a red light, was struck in the rear by the defendant’s vehicle. The defendant testified that when he applied his brakes, his vehicle skidded on the water accumulated on the pavement and struck the rear of the plaintiffs’ vehicle.

It is well settled that a rear-end collision with a stopped automobile establishes a prima facie case of negligence on the part of the operator of the moving vehicle and imposes a duty upon him or her to explain how the accident occurred *(see, Mendiolaza v Novinski,*268 AD2d 462; *Hurley v Cavitolo,*239 AD2d 559). If he or she is unable to rebut the inference of negligence created by an unexplained rear-end collision with a non-negligent explanation, the plaintiffs may properly be awarded judgment as a matter of law *(see, Mendiolaza v Novinski,*supra;*Leal v Wolff,*224 AD2d 392).

A defense which alleges only that the defendant saw the plaintiffs’ vehicle stopped at a red light but, upon application of his brakes, his vehicle nevertheless skidded into the plaintiffs due’ to the wet condition of the roadway, is not a sufficient defense to rebut the presumption of negligence *(see, Schmidt v Edelman,*263 AD2d 502; *Hurley v Cavitolo, supra; Pincus v Cohen,*198 AD2d 405; *Crociata v Vasquez,*168 AD2d 410). Thus, the plaintiffs are entitled to judgment on the issue of liability. Altman, J. P., Goldstein, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Tamala Y. Williams, Appellant

No. 06-23-00022-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 372nd District Court of 

Tarrant County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 

1711695D). Memorandum Opinion 

delivered by Justice van Cleef, Chief 

Justice Stevens and Justice Rambin

participating. 

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that the motion of the appellant to 

dismiss the appeal should be granted. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

We further order that the appellant, Tamala Y. Williams, pay all costs incurred by reason 

of this appeal.

RENDERED MARCH 7, 2023

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

SCOTT E. STEVENS

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
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 Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-65,443]

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on March 2, 2009 in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of Johnson Controls, Columbia, Tennessee.

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 13th day of March 2009.

Linda G. Poole,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-6312 Filed 3-23-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
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  Yellowstone  Corporate
Services, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June  30,
2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the  "Report"), We, King Kwok Yu, President and CEO, and Ka Yiu Ip, CFO,  of
the  Company,  certify to the best of our knowledge, 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/ King Kwok Yu
------------------------
     King Kwok Yu
     President and Chief Executive Officer
     November 12, 2002


/s/ Ka Yiu Ip
------------------------
     Ka Yiu Ip
     Chief Financial Officer
     November 12, 2002
Richard JONES, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

WD 80605

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Filed: December 18, 2018

Vincent K. Heitholt, Overland, Amicus Curiae; Damien S.B. Loyola, Kansas City for appellant.

Shaun Mackelprang, Jefferson City for respondent.

Before Division One: Lisa White Hardwick, Presiding Judge, Edward R. Ardini, Jr., and Thomas N. Chapman, Judges

**ORDER**

Per Curiam

Richard Jones appeals from the judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion after he pled guilty to first-degree tampering with a motor vehicle and resisting arrest. Upon review of the briefs and the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment. We have provided the parties with a Memorandum explaining the reasons for our decision because a published opinion would have no precedential value.

AFFIRMED. Rule 84.16(b).