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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                          52,951
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   87,179
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    184,818
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               328,600
<PP&E>                                         360,257
<DEPRECIATION>                                 309,067
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 396,055
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          160,252
<BONDS>                                          9,599
<COMMON>                                     4,286,086
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    400,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     139,489
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   396,055
<SALES>                                        530,636
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               530,636
<CGS>                                          315,657
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  315,657
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,079
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 27,141
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    27,141
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .00
        

</TABLE>
[No. 51891-7-I.

Division One.

May 3, 2004.]

#### Sharon L. Hamby, *Appellant,*v. Eye Associates Northwest, P.C., et al., *Respondents.*

Appeal from judgments of the Superior Court for King County, No. 01-2-18411-3, Sharon S. Armstrong, J., entered November 7 and December 18, 2002 and January 23, 2003. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Grosse, J., concurred in by Kennedy and Appelwick, JJ.
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Jevon ELLISON, Appellant.

No. ED 106179

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.

FILED: February 13, 2019 Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied April 3, 2019 Application for Transfer Denied June 4, 2019

FOR APPELLANT: Ted N. Gianaris, Special Public Defender, Simmons Hanly Conroy, One Court Street, Alton, IL 62002.

For Respondent: JOSH HAWLEY, Julia E. Neidhardt, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102.

Before Roy L. Richter, P.J., Robert M. Clayton III, J., and Angela T. Quigless, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM

Jevon Ellison ("Appellant") appeals his conviction, following jury trial, of two counts of assault in the first-degree, in violation of Section 565.050 RSMo, and two counts of armed criminal action, in violation of Section 571.015. Appellant was sentenced to a total of 18 years on each count of first-degree assault, and fifteen years for each count of armed criminal action, with the sentences to run concurrently.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).
## Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

In Re: Reginald Reece

No. 06

- 14

- 00144

- CR Original Mandamus Proceeding

Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice

Carter, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice

Moseley participating.

As stated in the C ourt’s opinion of this date, we find that Relator is not entitled to the

relief sought. Therefore, we deny the petition

.

RENDERED AUGUST 29, 2014

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
##### 



EXHIBIT 10.5
 THIRD AMENDED AND RESTATED STOCK PLEDGE AGREEMENT
(Financial)
  RECITALS
      Creation of Security Interest
  Collateral




---



##### 



Companys Obligations
 Payment of Secured Indebtedness
      2




---



##### 



Protection of Security Interest
        3




---



##### 



4




---



##### 



Default
  Consequence of Default
  5




---



##### 



Secured Partys Rights and Remedies
  Right to Assign
 Right to Discharge Companys Obligations
 Remedies and Enforcement
  6




---



##### 



Right of Sale
      7




---



##### 



Miscellaneous
 Representations and Warranties of Company
         8




---



##### 



WAIVER OF JURY TRIAL THE BANKS, THE AGENT AND THE COMPANY AFTER CONSULTING OR
HAVING HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONSULT WITH COUNSEL, KNOWINGLY, VOLUNTARILY AND INTENTIONALLY WAIVE
ANY RIGHT ANY OF THEM MAY HAVE TO A TRIAL BY JURY IN ANY LITIGATION BASED UPON OR ARISING OUT OF
THIS STOCK PLEDGE OR ANY RELATED INSTRUMENT OR AGREEMENT OR ANY OF THE TRANSACTIONS CONTEMPLATED BY
THIS STOCK PLEDGE OR ANY COURSE OF CONDUCT, DEALING, STATEMENTS (WHETHER ORAL OR WRITTEN) OR ACTION
OF ANY OF THEM. NEITHER THE BANKS, THE AGENT, NOR COMPANY SHALL SEEK TO CONSOLIDATE, BY
COUNTERCLAIM OR OTHERWISE, ANY SUCH ACTION IN WHICH A JURY TRIAL HAS BEEN WAIVED WITH ANY OTHER
ACTION IN WHICH A JURY TRIAL CANNOT BE OR HAS NOT BEEN WAIVED. THESE PROVISIONS SHALL NOT BE DEEMED
TO HAVE BEEN MODIFIED IN ANY RESPECT OR RELINQUISHED BY THE BANKS AND THE AGENT OR
 9




---



##### 



COMPANY EXCEPT BY A WRITTEN INSTRUMENT EXECUTED BY ALL OF THEM.
  COMPANY:NORTH POINTE FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.,
a Michigan corporationBy:Brian J. RoneyIts:
    Vice PresidentACCEPTED BY SECURED PARTY:COMERICA BANK, as Agent for the BanksBy:Michael P. StapletonIts:
    First Vice President 10




---



##### 



SCHEDULE A




---



##### 



EXHIBIT A
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND CONSENT
     NORTHWESTERN ZODIAC LIMITED PARTNERSHIPBy:Its:
    
    General PartnerBy:Its:
* 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. 02-10011

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

TROYCE ARVA RUBY, III, also known as Troyce Ruby,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:01-CR-129-1-A

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

October 29, 2002

Before DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Troyce Arva Ruby (“Ruby”) appeals the sentencing following

his guilty plea to possession with the intent to distribute

methamphetamine and using and carrying a firearm in relation to

a drug trafficking crime. Ruby argues that the district court

erred in sentencing him as a career offender under U.S.S.G.

§ 4B1.1(c) because his previous conviction for escape was not a

crime of violence.
No. 02-10011

-2-

This court reviews the district court’s application of the

Sentencing Guidelines de novo. See United States v. Charles,

301 F.3d 309, 312 (5th Cir. 2002). Section 4B1.2 defines a

“crime of violence” as an offense which “has as an element the

use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against

the person of another.” U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a). Ruby attempted

to escape after he was detained by officers for throwing beer

bottles out of a car window. Ruby’s conviction for escape meets

the definition of a “crime of violence.” See United States

v. Ruiz, 180 F.3d 675 (5th Cir. 1999). 

Ruby’s sentence is AFFIRMED.
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 ETFS Gold Trust (the Trust) on Form 10-K
for the period ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Graham Tuckwell,
principal executive officer of ETF Securities USA LLC, the Sponsor of the
Trust, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 Trust.

|                                      |                |  | 
|------------------------------------- | -------------- |  | 
|                                      |                |  | 
|/s/ Graham
Tuckwell                   |                | 
|                                      | *              | 
|Graham
Tuckwell**                     |                | 
|Chief
Executive Officer and President |                | 
|(principal
executive officer)         |                | 
|                                      |                |  | 
|Date:                                 | March 30,
2010 |  | 

|   |                                                                                                                                                       
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|*  | The
originally executed copy of this Certification will be maintained at the
Sponsors offices and will be made available for
inspection upon request.
|   |                                                                                                                                                       
|** | The
Registrant is a trust and Mr. Tuckwell is signing in his capacity as an
officer of ETF Securities USA LLC, the sponsor of
the Trust.              

---
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)

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of DCT Industrial Trust Inc., a Maryland corporation (the Company), does hereby certify with respect to the Quarterly
Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) that, to his knowledge:



| | (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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                   |  |  |  |                        
|------------------ |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Date: May 11, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/ Stuart B. Brown    
|                   |  |  |  | Stuart B. Brown        
|                   |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-50015

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.

MARIO VEGA-RENOVA, also known as Arturo Vega Renova,

Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:13-CR-1450

Before PRADO, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Mario Vega-Renova (Vega) pleaded guilty to illegal reentry of a deported 

alien, and he was sentenced to 41 months of imprisonment. Vega appeals the 

district court’s determination that his prior Illinois conviction for possession 

with intent to deliver cocaine qualified as a drug trafficking offense warranting 

a 16-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i). He argues 

that the Illinois statute criminalizes the “administering” and “dispensing” of 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 8, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-50015 Document: 00512894553 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/08/2015
No. 14-50015

drugs, which is not covered by the Guidelines or 21 U.S.C. § 841(a). Because 

Vega preserved his argument in the district court, our review is de novo.1

Vega has identified no prior Illinois case applying the statute in an 

“administering” or “dispensing” situation.2 A theoretical possibility that a 

statute might encompass types of conduct that would not qualify as a drug 

trafficking offense is insufficient.3 Thus, the district court was correct in 

determining that Vega’s conviction was a drug trafficking offense for purposes 

of the § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(i) enhancement.4

In addition, even if Vega could establish error, any such error would be

harmless because the district court stated that it would impose the same 

sentence regardless of any misapplication of the enhancement.5 Vega’s 

argument that the district court erred in imposing an alternative, aboveguidelines sentence is without merit.6

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

1 United States v. Teran-Salas, 767 F.3d 453, 457 (5th Cir. 2014); see United States v. 

Rodriguez, 711 F.3d 541, 548 (5th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 512 (2013).

2 See Teran-Salas, 767 F.3d at 460-61.

3 United States v. Carrasco-Tercero, 745 F.3d 192, 197-98 (5th Cir. 2014).

4 See Teran-Salas, 767 F.3d at 461-62 & n.5. 

5 See United States v. Delgado-Martinez, 564 F.3d 750, 752-53 (5th Cir. 2009); see also 

United States v. Richardson, 713 F.3d 232, 237 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 230 (2013).

6 See United States v. Bonilla, 524 F.3d 647, 656-59 (5th Cir. 2008).

2

 

 Case: 14-50015 Document: 00512894553 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/08/2015
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** MEMORANDUM OPINION N o. 04

- 14

- 00701

- CV EX PARTE Erin JUI From the 438th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2014

- CI

- 08797 Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Jason Pulliam, Just ice Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Jason Pulliam, Justice Delivered and Filed : March 4, 2015 AFFIRMED The Bexar County Sheriff’s Office (the “Sheriff’s Office”) appeals the trial court’s order expunging all records concerning Erin Jui’s arrest for theft. In a single issue, the Sheriff’s Office contends the t rial court’s expunction order i s not supported by legally sufficient evidence. We affirm the trial court’s order
. The Sheriff’s Office contends Jui was no t entitled to expunction under A rticle 55.01 of the Texas Code o f Criminal Procedure because Jui received deferred adjudication probation for the offense. The Sheriff’s Office also asserts Jui failed to establish by lega lly sufficient evidence that Jui had not received court

- ordered community supervision, thereby failing to comply with the statutory requirements for expunction. T EX . C ODE C RIM . P ROC . A NN . art. 55.01(a)(2) (West 2014)
.04

- 14

- 00701

- CV We agree with the Sheriff’s Office that, pursuant to Article 55 .01(a)(2), Jui would not be entitled to an expunction of her arrest records if she received court

- ordered community supervision
. See Ex parte Green , 373 S.W.3d 11 1, 113 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2012, no pet.) (holding that to be entitled to expunction, the petitioner must meet all statutory requirements under Article 55.01 ). Attachments to the answer filed by the Texas Department of Public Safety indicate that Jui received deferred adjudication and would, therefore, not be entitled to an expunction. Howeve r , attachments to pleadings are not evidence unless they are offered and admitted as evidence by the trial court. Texas Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. Sowell , No. 11

- 10

- 00018

- CV, 2011 WL 3359716 , at *1 (Tex. App.

— Eastland Aug. 4 , 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.). Her e, no reporter’s record was made of the expunction hearing. The trial court’s order states that “[ a ] fter presentation of evidence , it is the decision of the [trial] [c]ourt that Peti tioner is entitled to have [her] records expunged
. ” Because there is no reporter’s record, we are unable to determine what evidence the trial court considered in granting the expunction. The Sheriff’s Office ’s attempt at filling the void by referring to DPS’s answer and its attachments is ineffective to show that the evidence was insufficient to establish Jui’s entitlement to an expunction. Ex parte Cheeks , No. 07

- 11

- 0430

- CV , 2012 WL 952112, at *1 n.1 (Tex. App.

— Amarillo Mar. 21, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.)
. Without a record of the evidence presented at t he hearing, we cannot hold that the evidence is legally insuffic ient to support the expunction; therefore, the trial court’s order is affirmed. Jason Pulliam, Justice

- 2

-
**EXHIBIT 31.4**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Leonard J. Vrondissis, certify that:

 

1.              I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Gener8 Maritime, Inc.;

 

2.              Based on my knowledge, this 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 with respect to the period covered by this report;

 
| Date: April 30,   2018 | /s/ Leonard J.   Vrondissis |
|-----------------------------|-----------------------------|
|                        | Leonard J. Vrondissis       |
|                        | Chief Financial Officer     |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-6309

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOHN ANTHONY ROWE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, 

at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (3:03-cr-00051-RLV-1; 

3:16-cv-00518-RLV)

Submitted: September 7, 2017 Decided: September 15, 2017

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Anthony Rowe, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Freeman Greene, Assistant United 

States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

John Anthony Rowe seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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 

jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (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 motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a 

constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Rowe has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability 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
'"oui"<~Qe Stryker Facility 

--~~~;.;J Stack: <400' AGL 

Class G, SFC-700' AGL 

Class E, 700'AGL-FLT LVL 

____.[ ,_..,. Richland Facility 

k: <400' AGL 

lass G, SFC-700' AGL 

lass E, 700'AGL-FLT LVL 

Deviance Memorial (DFI) 

Radio: CTAF 122.7 

~~;~=~~~~~~.:;~¥r=;~~4~~~'IE~ illiams CO (OG6) 

Radio: CTAF 122.8
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 WPS, INC. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for
the period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Guillermo Pina, certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and
belief:





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 results of operations of the Company.








March
      29, 2010
            By:
            /s/ GUILLERMO
      PINAGuillermo
      PinaPresident,
      CEO and Director
              (Principal
      Executive Officer)
April2, 2014
Document Control Office (DCO) (7407M) Office ofPollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) Environmental Protection Agency 1200 PennsylvaniaAve., N.W. Washington, DC 20460-0001 Attn: TSCA Section 4. 

## EASTMAN

Eastman Chemical Company P.O.Box511 Kingsport, Tennessee 37662 www.Eastman.com

CBIC Control Number 

# 358956
RE: Confidential Business Information (CBI) in OECD Report submitted for propanoic acid, 2-methyl-, 3-(benzoyloxy)-2,2,4-trimethylpentyl ester (CASRN 22527-63-5) pursuantto 40 CFR 799.5089.
Dear Sir or Madam, With regard to the letter dated December 17, 2013 regarding Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0112 for submission ofa test report for propanoic acid, 2-methyl-, 3- (benzoyloxy)-2,2,4-trimethylpentyl ester (CASRN 22527-63-5) pursuant to 40 CFR 799.5089 and signed by Leonard Velsor, Senior Attorney in Global Trade and Compliance for Eastman Chemical Company; Eastman wishes to provide the following clarification: 

### Appendix26, pages444 to 583 (Appendix26iHistopathology Phase Report) are nonCBI, both in the hardcopy and the CD (CompactDisc) thatwereprovided to the agency. Ifyou should have any questions regarding this clarification, please contact me at (423) 229-2094 (email: lvelsor@eastman.com) or Mr. Gary Shrum, Director ofProduct Stewardship and Regulatory Affairs at (423) 229-2471 (email: glshrum@eastman.com). Sincerely,

Leonard Velsor Senior Attorney Global Trade and Compliance Eastman Chemical Company P.O. Box 511, Building 75 Kingsport, TN 37662-5075

# t~ECEIVED 

# l OPPT CSIC 

# I
2fllt!fiAR 13**M~** 

## 9: 1 

## '4