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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          12,885
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,218
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (106)
<INVENTORY>                                      6,629
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                23,626
<PP&E>                                          47,067
<DEPRECIATION>                                (26,936)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  43,757
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,174
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            68
<OTHER-SE>                                      38,515
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    43,757
<SALES>                                         18,432
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                18,432
<CGS>                                           11,234
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,234
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,403)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       141
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,544)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,544)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.25)
        

</TABLE>
Stephen Murray MITCHELL, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9331.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 22, 2013.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit *2011dismissed. 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* ).
Hosea JACKSON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9248.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
Charles BRYANT, Individually and as Next Friend and Guardian of D. B., et al., petitioners, v. NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, et al.

No. 12-932.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
**EXHIBIT 31**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, RonHooper, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Sabine Royalty Trust, for which Bankof America, N.A. acts as Trustee; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial 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; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, distributable income and changes in trust corpus of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(c) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)), or for causing such controls and procedures to be established and maintained, for the registrant and I have: 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared; 

b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal controlover financial reporting to be designed under my supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes; 

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and 

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors: 

a) All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role inthe registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: November 7, 2012
Jason KROESEN, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 12-9018.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, denied.
EXHIBIT 31.1
CERTIFICATION
I, Lukas Braunschweiler, certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of DionexCorporation;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations andcash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:
 (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the periodcovered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and
 

 

 5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Date: May 10, 2004   /s/ Lukas Braunschweiler   Lukas Braunschweiler  President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
Mario LOMAX, petitioner, v. ILLINOIS.

No. 12-9060.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, denied.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7014

ERROL WRIGHT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusE. J. WILLIS; SERGEANT WILLIAMS; R. J. DASHDEN; F. GRANT; S. SHIELD; S. WITTAKER; TRENT MILES, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Paul W. Grimm, Magistrate Judge. (CA-97- 1710-H) Submitted: November 23, 1999 Decided: December 21, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Errol Wright, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Kimberly Smith Ward, Gloria Wilson Shelton, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* The proceedings in this action were conducted by a magistrate judge pursuant to the consent of the parties. See 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(c) (West 1993 & Supp. 1999). 

### 2 PER CURIAM: Errol Wright appeals the magistrate judge’s order after a trial denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint. * We have reviewed the record and the district court’s findings of fact and find no reversible error. The magistrate judge’s factual findings are not clearly erroneous. See Martin v. Deiriggi , 985 F.2d 129, 136 (4th Cir. 1992). The magistrate judge’s credibility determinations will not be disturbed on appeal. See United States v. Saunders , 886 F.2d 56, 60 (4th Cir. 1989); McCrary v. Runyon, 515 F.2d 1082, 1086 (4th Cir. 1975). Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Chase Carmen HUNTER, petitioner, v. EXECUTIVES, Inc.

No. 12-8694.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied. Petitioner allowed until May 6, 2013, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
STATE of Louisiana v. Labarrie Dediric WATSON

No. 2018-KH-1953

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 28, 2019

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF CADDO**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. Applicant does not identify an illegal term in his sentence, and therefore, his filing is properly construed as an application for post-conviction relief. *See* *State v. Parker* , 98-0256 (La. 5/8/98), 711 So.2d 694. As such, it is subject to the time limitation set forth in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. The application was not timely filed in the district court, and applicant fails to carry his burden to show that an exception applies. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 ; *State ex rel. Glover v. State* , 93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.

Applicant has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see* 28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Applicant's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, applicant has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.
REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1240-3 Filed 08/17/17 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 1240-3 Filed 08/17/17 Page 2 of 2
Carlos ESPINAL-ALMEIDA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9098.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
Derek TODD, petitioner, v. Keirith BRIESENICK, et al.

No. 12-8628.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20
- 0259 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. DAVID JOSEPH CORD,

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 May 5 , 2021 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

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

March 30 2021

03/30/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0259
Don BOYD, petitioner, v. KLLM TRANSPORT SERVICES, INC., et al.

No. 12-9398.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 28, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Christopher HAMMONDS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-875

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed June 28, 2019 Rehearing Denied July 17, 2019

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Ali L. Hansen, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rebecca Rock McGuigan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Christopher Hammonds appeals his sentence after entering a no contest plea. Because Hammonds failed to file a motion to withdraw his plea, we are without jurisdiction. *See* *Hicks v. State*, 915 So. 2d 740, 741 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) ; *accord* *Murphy v. State*, 181 So. 3d 574 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) ; *Campos-Carriera v. State*, 106 So. 3d 483 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) ; *Vestal v. State*, 50 So. 3d 733, 735 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) ; *Bailey v. State*, 21 So. 3d 147, 150 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009). *But see* *Dortch v. State*, 242 So. 3d 431, 433 (Fla. 4th DCA), *review granted*, SC18-681, 2018 WL 3635017 (Fla. July 11, 2018). Consequently, we dismiss the appeal *798without prejudice to Hammonds's right to seek appropriate and timely postconviction relief below.

DISMISSED.

ORFINGER, WALLIS and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-10713

Summary Calendar

ANTOINE EARL POWELL,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

RODNEY W. CHANDLER,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:14-CV-493

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Antoine Earl Powell, federal prisoner # 56375-180, appeals from the 

dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging his sentence following 

his guilty plea to possession with the intent to distribute at least 50 grams of 

crack cocaine and possession of a firearm during the commission of a drug 

trafficking crime. We review the dismissal de novo. Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 

448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000). 

* 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

December 23, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-10713 Document: 00512480715 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/23/2013
No. 13-10713

As the district court determined, Powell seeks to challenge the validity 

of his sentence rather than the manner in which his sentence has been 

executed, his petition properly arises under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Id. at 451-52. A 

§ 2255 motion must be brought by the movant in the court that sentenced him. 

§ 2255(a); Ojo v. INS, 106 F.3d 680, 683 (5th Cir. 1997). The district court did 

not impose the sentence at issue; thus, it did not err by dismissing the petition 

rather than construing it as a § 2255 motion. See Ojo, 106 F.3d at 683. The 

judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 13-10713 Document: 00512480715 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/23/2013
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HEENA SHIM-LARKIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF NEW YORK,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-mc-80022-MEJ 

REFERRAL FOR PURPOSE OF 

DETERMINING RELATIONSHIP

Third party REMIND moves to consolidate the above-captioned litigation with another 

action pending before the Honorable Donna M. Ryu, Heena Shim-Larkin v. City of New York, 

Case No. 4:17-mc-80019-DMR. Mot. to Consol., Dkt. No. 4. In accordance with Civil Local 

Rule 3-12(c), the Court REFERS the above-captioned action to Judge Ryu to consider whether the 

cases should be related. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 10, 2017

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:17-mc-80022-DMR Document 5 Filed 03/10/17 Page 1 of 1
Keith A. BARBER, petitioner, v. Rick THALER, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

No. 12-9667.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 10, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Marion Costell ANDREWS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D19-1083

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed June 25, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Patrick Alexandre MISSUD, petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY, et al.

No. 12-7817.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                            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 Alpha Technologies Group, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending July 28, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("Report"), I, James
J. Polakiewicz, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities and 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/ James J. Polakiewicz
---------------------------------
James J. Polakiewicz
Chief Financial Officer
September 11, 2002
LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC., petitioner, v. STATIC CONTROL COMPONENTS, INC.

No. 12-873.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 3, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granted.
GUARDIAN MEDICAL GROUP, L.L.C. and Cellution Wellness Center, Inc. v. Cecilia MOUTON, M.D. and the Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners

NO. 2019-CC-0629

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 17, 2019

Denied.
exv4w5






Exhibit 4.5




Consent of Mark O’Dea




     I, Mark O’Dea, hereby confirm that I have read the Offer and Circular of Fronteer Development
Group Inc. (the “Company”) furnished with the Company’s offer dated January 23, 2009 to purchase
all of the issued and outstanding common shares of Aurora Energy Resources Inc., which Offer and
Circular incorporates by reference the Company’s annual information form dated March 27, 2008 for
the year ended December 31, 2007 (the “AIF”).



     I hereby consent to the use of my name in connection with references to my preparation or
involvement in the preparation of the technical report dated November 1, 2007 entitled “The
Exploration Activities of Aurora Energy Resources Inc. on the CMB Uranium Property, Labrador,
Canada, During the Period January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2007” prepared together with Gary Giroux,
Dr. D.H.C. Wilton, Jim Lincoln, Christopher Lee and Ian Cunningham-Dunlop (the “Technical Report”)
in the AIF or other documents incorporated by reference therein. I further consent to the
inclusion in the Offer and Circular and the registration statement on Form F-8 filed with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Registration Statement”) of the Technical
Report (through the inclusion by way of incorporation by reference of the AIF in the Offer and
Circular) and of extracts from or a summary of the Technical Report in the Offer and Circular and
the Registration Statement or any documents incorporated by reference therein.



     I also hereby confirm that I have read the Technical Report and extracts from or a summary of
the Technical Report contained in the Offer and Circular and the Registration Statement by way of
incorporation by reference of the AIF and that I have no reason to believe there are any
misrepresentations in the information contained therein that is derived from the Technical Report
or that is within my knowledge as a result of the services that I have performed in connection with
the Technical Report.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	January 23, 2009 	  	(signed) Mark O’Dea
 	 
	 	 	Mark O’Dea, P.Geo.
Kerry Lee NIXON, petitioner, v. James RECTOR, et al.

No. 12M104.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 2013.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.
Osvaldo Francisco GONZALEZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-10036.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 3, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.