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

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000745895
<NAME> BOETTCHER PENSION INVESTORS LTD.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1996
<CASH>                                         513,550
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  141,366
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       8,582,007
<DEPRECIATION>                               (572,975)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,670,652
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      5,821,554
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,670,652
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               308,872
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  305,399
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             138,410
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,473
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,473
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,473
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
* 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. 08-10200

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

GERALD STONE, Individually,

Also Known as Ranscott Construction, Inc.,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

No. 3:07-CV-1632

Before SMITH, STEWART, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

According to his notice of appeal, Gerald Stone appeals “from the order of

the District Court, dated February 19, 2008, wherein the Court, in granting the

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 10, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-10200

2

Government’s motion to quash certain writs of garnishment, stated thatthe other writs of garnishment, which were the subject of Appellant’s motion to quash,

would continue in force and effect.” This court sent both parties a notice directing them to brief the issue “[w]hether the order granting the motion to quash

writs of garnishment entered on February 20, 2008, from which appeal is taken,

is appealable at this stage of the litigation pursuant to R. 54(b), Fed. R. Civ. P.,

or the collateral order doctrine, or whether there exists some other basis of appellate jurisdiction. See generally 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292(a), (b).”

Stone did not address this issue in his opening brief. In its brief, the government presented approximately five pages of explication as to why we have no

jurisdiction at this time. Stone did not file a reply brief.

As the appellant, Stone has the obligation to show jurisdiction. Moreover,

the government is correct that, for the reasons it gives, the order designated in

the notice of appeal is not a final, appealable order. As the government explains,

“Stone appears to have filed the appeal based on a misunderstanding of the difference between the effectiveness of a writ [of garnishment] and the final disposition order in a garnishment action . . . . Because all issues in the garnishment

action have not been resolved, the order on appeal is not a final order, and there

is no appellate jurisdiction under section 1291.” 

Stone is not put in jeopardy by the dismissal of the appeal. As the government helpfully points out,“The order appealed was entered as a procedural matter to dismiss those garnishees that did not hold any funds . . . . Stone may appeal this order, if he chooses, after a final disposition order is entered in the district court.”

The appeal is DISMISSED for want of appellate jurisdiction.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           5,224
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,526
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,053
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                13,472
<PP&E>                                          33,135
<DEPRECIATION>                                  20,475
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  29,126
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,152
<BONDS>                                         10,053
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        55,996
<OTHER-SE>                                    (49,165)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    29,126
<SALES>                                            393
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                27,211
<CGS>                                               99
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   15,632
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,766
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   432
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,411
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,327
<INCOME-TAX>                                        63
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,264
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    382
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,646
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    $0.93
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $0.91
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          473479
<SECURITIES>                                    254216
<RECEIVABLES>                                 41590390
<ALLOWANCES>                                    229000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                45460170
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       7038802
<OTHER-SE>                                     2049047
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  45460170
<SALES>                                        1556412
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1556412
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                577102
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 21000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              703460
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 254850
<INCOME-TAX>                                     86500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             168350
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    168350
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .11
        

</TABLE>
Ezakeous Marquis BROWN v. STATE

CR-15-0973

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

December 9, 2016

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Jonathan SKAFF, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-200

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed August 18, 2017.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 3 (Thursday, January 4, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 544-545]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-28455]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Express Negotiated Service 
Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: January 4, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
December 28,

[[Page 545]]

2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS Request to 
Add Priority Mail Express Contract 61 to Competitive Product List. 
Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2018-113, CP2018-
155.

Elizabeth A. Reed,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2017-28455 Filed 1-3-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
---

Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

CERTIFICATIONS

The undersigned, Mark Sampson, President and Chief Executive Officer of Nexaira Wireless Inc. (the Company), and Ralph Proceviat, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:

1.The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended October 31, 2009 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended October 31, 2009 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the undersigned have set their hands hereto as of the 29ththday of January, 2010.

| |                                             
| | --------------------------------------------
| | /s/ MARK SAMPSON                            
| | Mark Sampson                                
| | President and Chief Executive Officer       
| | (Principal Executive Officer)               
| |                                             
| | /S/ RALPH PROCEVIAT                         
| | Ralph Proceviat                             
| | Chief Financial Officer                     
| | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)

---
Chang G. Park, CPA, Ph. D.

t 2667 CAMINO DEL RIO S. PLAZA B t SAN DIEGO t CALIFORNIA 92108-3707t

t TELEPHONE (858)722-5953 t FAX (858) 761-0341  t FAX (858) 433-2979

t E-MAIL changgpark@gmail.comt











December 20, 2011








To Whom It May Concern:











We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of Alarming Devices, Inc. of our report dated December 20, 2011, with respect to the balance sheets as of August 31, 2011 and 2010, and the related statements of income, cash flows, and shareholders’ deficit for the fiscal years period ended August 31, 2011 and 2010, which appears on Form 10-K/A of Alarming Devices, Inc.























Very truly yours,





/s/PLS CPA


PLS CPA, A Professional Corp.


San Diego, CA 92111










Registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board
Motion Denied; Order filed March 1, 2018. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-17-00760-CV

____________

IN THE INTEREST OF R.P.R., JR., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 314th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2016-04660J

ORDER

Appellant R.J.R. is represented by court-appointed counsel on appeal, 

William Thursland. On January 9, 2018, appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief 

stating the appeal in this cause is frivolous, under the authority of Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). See In re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d 326, 

329–30 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.) (applying Anders 

procedures to a parental termination case). On January 10, 2018, counsel filed a 

motion to withdraw as appellate counsel based on his Anders brief. 
The Supreme Court of Texas has concluded that the right to counsel under 

Family Code section 107.013(a)(1) through the exhaustion of appeals under Family 

Code section 107.016(2)(B) encompasses all proceedings in the Supreme Court of 

Texas, including the filing of a petition for review. In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27

(Tex. 2016) (per curiam). Once appointed by the trial court, counsel should be 

permitted to withdraw only for good cause and on appropriate terms and 

conditions. Id. Mere dissatisfaction of counsel or client with each other is not good 

cause. Id. Nor is counsel’s belief that the client has no grounds to seek further 

review from the court of appeals’ decision. Id. Counsel’s obligation to the client 

still may be satisfied by filing an appellate brief meeting the standards set in 

Anders v. California and its progeny. See Anders, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396; 

In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 28. However, counsel’s motion to withdraw in this 

court, in the absence of additional grounds for withdrawal, may be premature. In re 

P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27. If counsel for R.J.R. has concluded that there are no nonfrivolous points to urge in a petition for review in the Supreme Court of Texas, 

counsel should file in that court a petition for review that satisfies the standards for 

an Anders brief. See id. (stating that “[i]n this Court, appointed counsel’s 

obligations can be satisfied by filing a petition for review that satisfies the 

standards for an Anders brief”).

A petition for review must be filed with the Supreme Court clerk within 45 

days after the following: (1) the date the court of appeals rendered judgment, if no 

motion for rehearing or en banc reconsideration is timely filed; or (2) the date of 

the court of appeals’ last ruling on all timely filed motions for rehearing or en banc 

reconsideration. Tex. R. App. P. 53.7(a). The Supreme Court of Texas may extend

the time to file a petition for review if a party files a motion complying with Texas 
Rule of Appellate Procedure 10.5(b) no later than 15 days after the last day for 

filing the petition. Tex. R. App. P. 53.7(f).

Because the only grounds counsel has identified for withdrawal do not 

constitute good cause, we DENY counsel’s motion to withdraw.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Busby and Wise.
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">TAM Medical Supply Corp., as Assignee of Henriquez, Flor, Appellant, <br><br>against<br><br>MVAIC, Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell, Esq.), for appellant.Marshall &amp; Marshall, PLLC (Naim M. Peress, Esq.), for respondent.</p><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Carmen R. Velasquez, J.), entered October 6, 2014. The order granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court which granted a motion by defendant Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (sued herein as MVAIC) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.</p><p>Contrary to plaintiff's contention, MVAIC established that plaintiff had not timely filed an affidavit providing MVAIC with a notice of intention to make claim (<i>see</i> Insurance Law ยง 5208 [a]) and, thus, plaintiff's assignor is not a "covered person" (Insurance Law ยง 5221 [b] [2]). Consequently, a condition precedent to plaintiff's right to apply for payment of no-fault benefits from defendant has not been satisfied (<a href="../2009/2009_50041.htm" target="_blank"><i>see M.N.M. Med. Health Care, P.C. v MVAIC</i>, 22 Misc 3d 128</a>[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 50041[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &amp; 13th Jud Dists 2009]; <a href="../2007/2007_51607.htm" target="_blank"><i><font color="FF0000">[*2]</font>Bell Air Med. Supply, LLC v MVAIC</i>, 16 Misc 3d 135</a>[A], 2007 NY Slip Op 51607[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d &amp; 11th Jud Dists 2007]). As a result, we need not reach plaintiff's remaining contention.</p><p>Accordingly the order is affirmed.</p><p>PESCE, P.J., ALIOTTA and SOLOMON, JJ., concur.</p><br><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: December 08, 2017<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
Edgar B. FARMER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

CASE NO. 1D17-3677

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Opinion filed November 14, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32

                    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 Lone Moose Adventures, Inc.
(the "Registrant") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2003,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, we,
Christopher B. Glover, President and Michael C.Brown, Secretary/Treasurer of
the Registrant, 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 Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
the Registrant.

Dated: 8/13/03                       Signature:/s/Christopher B. Glover
                                     Christopher B. Glover
                                     President

Dated: 8/18/03                       Signature:/s/Michael C. Brown
                                     Michael C. Brown
                                     Secretary/Treasurer
SERVED MARCH 28, 2011 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

- . -'.T- irv !T r',r 

•^^•;M•Jr^urAT!V^l 

\\r^ { l 7q A iu= U3 

IN THE MATTER OF 

CISCO AVIATION, LLC. 

FAA DOCKET NO. CPl 1 SWOOOl 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMS No. FAA-2011-0060 

AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING DATES 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that testimony and evidence will be heard and 

considered on June I and 2,2011, inclusive, in the U.S Coast Guard Hearing Room, 

8876 Gulf Freeway, Ste 370, Houston, TX 77017. Hearings will commence at 9:00 

a.m. and conclude at 4:30 p.m. each day. The parties should vacate the courthouse on or 

before 5:00 p.m. each day. 

Settled cases will not be removed from the docket until the Judge receives the 

proper pleading(s) ^ Pleadings may be forwarded by fax, express mail, courier or 

postal service^. 

SO ORDERED. 

joodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 

' Materials filed in the FAA Hearing Docket (except for materials filed in security cases) are also available 

for viewing at http://www. regulations, gov. 

^ The Administrator's civil penalty decisions, along with indexes of the decisions, the Rules of Practice, as 

well as other materials relating to civil penalty cases, are available on the internet at: 

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters qffices/agc/pol_adjudication/agc400/civil_penalty/; see 

also: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Titlel4/14tab_02.tpl. In 

addition, Thomson Reuters/West Publishing publishes Federal Aviation Decisions. Finally, the decisions 

are available through LEXIS (TRANS library) and WestLaw 9FTRAN-FAA database). For additional 

information, see the Web site. 

1 
FAA Docket No. CPl 1 SWOOOl 

' (Civil Penalty Action) 

SEft^Cl; LIST 

OJtlGINAt & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. ' ^ 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-45f 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite^2Wl 000^ 

OSit^PY 

George E. Crow, Respondent's Counsel 

Law Office of George E. Crow 

Aviation Law Firm ' ^s^^ ^ ' 

P.O. Box 30 

Katy, TX 77492-0030 

TEL: 281-391-9275 

Clyde E Barton, Manager 

Cisco Aviation, LLC 

16055 Space Center Blvd., Suite 235 

Houston, TX 77062-6212 d • -

Yola.n(ia.AyaiaBerna[, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Safety Enforcement Branch 

OflBce of the Regional Counsel 

Southwest Region, ASW-7E3 

Federal Aviation Administration 

2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663 

Fort Worth, TX 76137 

TEL: 817-222-5070 

FAX: 817-222-5945 or 5092 ' 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, AdministMOiye Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E, , , :•; , 

East Building Ground Floor, Room E12-320 

Washington, DC 20590 ,.,.. > 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attomey-Advis4- 202-ai$525t2i'litegal Assistant FAX: : ^02-366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in P^fi|i{^^|^^^Mii^^!Fr ^'^ ^^ ^°''^^^^^|H^;vi?^*'^^ 

Aviation Adttunistration, 800 Independence Afersw, s!^|^Bwff Wni^t Buildiiig—Si^e^l^WPfiWashuigton, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.