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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule  contains summary financial  information  extracted from Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended September 30, 1997 for May Drilling Partnership 1983-2 and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such Form 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000711309
<NAME>                        May Drilling Partnership 1983-2
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   Sep-30-1997
<CASH>                                         163
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  178
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               341
<PP&E>                                         16,655
<DEPRECIATION>                                 16,143
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 853
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          24
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   853
<SALES>                                        580
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               587
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  212
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                375
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            375
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   375
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  19.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  19.04
        


</TABLE>
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 07-1575

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

v.

JULIO CARRION SANTIAGO,

Defendant, Appellant.

____________________

No. 07-1718

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Appellee,

v.

PEDRO MIRANDA

Defendant, Appellant.

___________________

No. 07-1728

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Appellee,

v.

JUAN NUNEZ,

Defendant, Appellant.

____________________
No. 07-2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

v.

JOSE O. RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant, Appellant.

 

ERRATA

The opinion of this Court, issued on March 19, 2009, should be

amended as follows.

On page 11, replace the last sentence of 1st paragraph which

begins "The objection was not preserved at sentencing . . . ." with

"Although Nunez did at sentencing contest the quantity of drugs

recommended by the pre-sentence report, the base offense level he

requested instead was in fact the one adopted by the district judge,

and reasonably so.".
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1510

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce the depreciation 

recovery period for roof systems. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 6, 2005

Mr. FOLEY (for himself, Mrs. JONES of Ohio, Mr. SHAW, Mr. NUSSLE, Mr. 

LEWIS of Kentucky, Ms. HART, Ms. VELA ́ZQUEZ, Mr. WILSON of South 

Carolina, Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California, Mr. FEENEY, and Mr. 

ENGLISH of Pennsylvania) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce 

the depreciation recovery period for roof systems.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Realistic Roofing Tax 

5 Treatment Act of 2005’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DEPRECIATION RECOVERY PERIOD FOR ROOF SYS7 TEMS. 

8 (a) 20-YEAR RECOVERY PERIOD.—Subparagraph 

9 (F) of section 168(e)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
2

•HR 1510 IH 

1 1986 (relating to classification of certain property) is 

2 amended to read as follows: 

3 ‘‘(F) 20-YEAR PROPERTY.—The term ‘20-

4 year property’ means—

5 ‘‘(i) initial clearing and grading land 

6 improvements with respect to any electric 

7 utility transmission and distribution plant, 

8 and 

9 ‘‘(ii) any roof system.’’. 

10 (b) REQUIREMENT TO USE STRAIGHT LINE METH11 OD.—Paragraph (3) of section 168(b) of such Code is 

12 amended by adding at the end the following new subpara13 graph: 

14 ‘‘(I) Any roof system.’’. 

15 (c) ALTERNATIVE SYSTEM.—The table contained in 

16 section 168(g)(3)(B) of such Code is amended by striking 

17 the last item and inserting the following new items:

‘‘(F)(i) ....................................................................................... 25

(F)(ii) ........................................................................................ 20’’.

18 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

19 this section shall apply to property placed in service after 

20 the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
Michael D. WALTERS, petitioner, v. Timothy BUCHANAN, Warden.

No. 13-6281.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 18, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Exhibit No. 32.1
----------------
Form 10-QSB
Parallel Technologies, Inc.
File No. 0-19276

          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 Parallel  Technologies,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Glenn
A. Little,  Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  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 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: July 16, 2004                               By:    /s/ Glenn A. Little
      -------------                                  ---------------------------
                                                                 Glenn A. Little
                                                     Chief Executive Officer and
                                                         Chief Financial Officer


A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to  Parallel  Technologies,  Inc.  and will be  retained  by  Parallel
Technologies,  Inc. and furnished to the Securities  and Exchange  Commission or
its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                   5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
Partnership's unaudited financial statements for the quarter ended September 30,
1998 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                            1,000
       
<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                       Sep-30-1998
<CASH>                                    533
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                               0
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          533
<PP&E>                                      0
<DEPRECIATION>                              0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            558
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      64
<BONDS>                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                                494
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              558
<SALES>                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          480
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             291
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           189
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       189
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                              189
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           21.39
<EPS-DILUTED>                           21.39
        

</TABLE>
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

ARRYANNE MOSS,

Plaintiff,

v.

INFINITY INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-03456-JSC 

ORDER CONTINUING CASE 

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Given that the docket does not reflect that Defendants have been served by the United 

States Marshal, the case management conference scheduled for April 28, 2016 is continued to 

June 2, 2016 at 1:30 p.m.; a case management shall be filed seven days prior to the conference. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 22, 2016

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:17-cv-00115-JSC Document 30 Filed 04/22/16 Page 1 of 1
Gregory Lamar POWE, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 12-1259.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, denied.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 18-3481

___________________________

United States of America

Plaintiff Appellee

v.

Jose Farias-Valdovinos

Defendant Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City

 ____________

 Submitted: March 3, 2020

Filed: May 18, 2020

[Unpublished] 

____________

Before SHEPHERD, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM. 

Jose Farias-Valdovinos appeals from his sentence after pleading guilty,

pursuant to a plea agreement containing an appeal waiver, to aiding and abetting the

possession with intent to distribute a mixture or substance containing a detectable

amount of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and
846 and 18 U.S.C. § 2. After varying downward, the district court1

 sentenced him

120 months imprisonment. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm

and dismiss in part the appeal.

On appeal, Farias-Valdovinos’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that Farias-Valdovinos’s sentence was

substantively unreasonable and that the appeal waiver in his plea agreement should

not be enforced. After independently reviewing the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75 (1988), we ordered supplemental briefing on whether sufficient evidence

supported Farias-Valdovinos’s guilty plea and whether that claim survives his appeal

waiver. After considering the parties’ supplemental filings, we conclude that

Farias-Valdovinos’s argument that his sentence is substantively unreasonable is

barred by the appeal waiver and must be dismissed. However, we find that the appeal

waiver does not prevent us from considering his argument that his guilty plea was not

knowing or voluntary because there was an insufficient factual basis underlying the

plea. See United States v. Haubrich, 744 F.3d 554, 558 (8th Cir. 2014).

Because Farias-Valdovinos failed to challenge the factual basis underlying the

plea before the district court, we review this issue for plain error. See United States

v. Frook, 616 F.3d 773, 776 (8th Cir. 2010). Following careful review of the record,

we conclude that the district court did not plainly err in finding that there was a

sufficient factual basis for the plea and in accepting Farias-Valdovinos’s guilty plea. 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court and dismiss in part the

appeal.

______________________________

1The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri. 

-2-
#### A-1 ELECTRONICS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pang “Jeffrey” CHANG, Yue “William” Bai, Yu “Stephen” Zhang, Chi Tsou “Joe” Yu, PC Micro Center International, Inc., and Fry’s Electronics, Inc., Defendants, and GPB Enterprises, Inc. and Great Energy Co., Ltd., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 04-1162.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

April 23, 2004.

Vincent Y. Lin, Principal Attorney, Industry, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Frank Frisenda, Jr., Principal Attorney, El Monte, CA, for Defendants-Appellants.

Before SCHALL, GAJARSA, and PROST, Circuit Judges.

*ORDER*

SCHALL, Circuit Judge.

GPB Enterprises, Inc. and Great Energy Co., Ltd. (GPB) respond to this court’s March 10, 2004 order directing them to show cause why their appeal should not be dismissed as premature.

The United States District Court for the Central District of California decided, on summary judgment, that GPB Enterprises, Inc. did not have standing to pursue its counterclaim regarding design patent infringement and that the patent was invalid. The district court also granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on its copyright infringement claim against some, but not all, defendants. The judge stated that “judgment shall be entered in Plaintiff and Counterdefendant’s favor consistent herewith.” However, GPB does not assert that there has been a disposition of all pending claims or that a Fed. R.Civ.P. 54(b) judgment was entered. Thus, any attempt to appeal is premature.*
      *Nystrom v. TREX Co., Inc.,*339 F.3d 1347 (Fed.Cir.2003).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The appeal is dismissed.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

We need not decide, at this juncture, whether we or the regional circuit would have jurisdiction over an appeal in this case. Even if this appeal should have been filed in the regional circuit, we would decline to transfer the appeal because the appeal is premature. 28 U.S.C. § 1631 (a court shall transfer an action over which it does not have jurisdiction to the appropriate court "if it is in the interest of justice”).
s Order filed September 11, 2012

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 12

- 00392

- CV

____________ HELEN MAYFIELD , Appellant

V. JOHN CUOCO, STEVE FU LLJART, KBTX NEWS, A CORPORATION AND GRAY COMMUNICATIONS, A CORPORATION, JOINT LY AND

SE VERALLY, Appellee

On Appeal from the 80th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2011

- 26159



### O R D E R
Appellant ’ s brief was due July 9, 2012

. No brief or motion for extension of time
has been filed.
Unless appellant files h er br ie f with the clerk of this court on or before September 24, 2012 , the court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

PER CURIAMOrder filed .
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-18-00747-CV

Marcelo GALVAN, Jr. and Analicia R. Galvan,

Appellants

v.

Cledson Macedo de CARVALHO, Kristina Carvalho and Jagaland Co., LLC,

Appellees

From the 49th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CVH001835-D1

Honorable Jose A. Lopez, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE MARTINEZ, AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the orders of the trial court are 

AFFIRMED. It is ORDERED that appellees, Cledson Macedo de Carvalho, Kristina Carvalho, 

and Jagaland Co., LLC, recover their costs of this appeal from appellants, Marcelo Galvan, Jr. and 

Analicia R. Galvan.

SIGNED February 19, 2020.

_____________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
KELLER FOUNDATION/CASE FOUNDATION, et al., petitioners, v. Joseph TRACY, et al.

No. 12-1053.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 17, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 126 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), 
2 

•HCON 126 EH 

1 SECTION 1. USE OF ROTUNDA FOR CEREMONY TO AWARD 

2 POSTHUMOUSLY CONGRESSIONAL GOLD 

3 MEDAL IN COMMEMORATION TO 

4 SERVICEMEMBERS WHO PERISHED IN AF5 GHANISTAN ON AUGUST 26, 2021, DURING 

6 EVACUATION OF UNITED STATES CITIZENS 

7 AND AFGHAN ALLIES AT HAMID KARZAI 

8 INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT. 

9 (a) AUTHORIZATION.—The rotunda of the Capitol is 

10 authorized to be used on September 10, 2024, for a cere11 mony to award posthumously a Congressional Gold Medal 

12 in commemoration to the servicemembers who perished in 

13 Afghanistan on August 26, 2021, during the evacuation 

14 of citizens of the United States and Afghan allies at 

15 Hamid Karzai International Airport. 

16 (b) PREPARATIONS.—Physical preparations for the 

17 conduct of the ceremony described in subsection (a) shall 

18 be carried out in accordance with such conditions as the 

19 Architect of the Capitol may prescribe. 

Passed the House of Representatives August 16, 

2024. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 126 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Authorizing the use of the rotunda of the Capitol 

Hamid Karzai International Airport. zens of the United States and Afghan allies at August 26, 2021, during the evacuation of citiservicemembers who perished in Afghanistan on gressional Gold Medal in commemoration to the for a ceremony to award posthumously a Con-
EXHIBIT 32.1







CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


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 Puramed Bioscience Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), the undersigned 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 results of operations of the Company.




Date: September 24, 2010

/s/ Russell W. MitchellRussell W. Mitchell

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer





Date: September 24, 2010

/s/ James W. HigginsJames W. Higgins

Chief Financial and Operating Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:13-CR-61

)

DAMION D. ALEXANDER )

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

UPON A PLEA OF GUILTY

TO: THE HONORABLE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN, JUDGE, 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Upon Defendant’s request to enter a plea of guilty pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules

of Criminal Procedure, this matter came on for hearing before U.S. Magistrate Roger B. Cosbey,

on May 7, 2014, with the written consents of the defendant, counsel for the defendant, and counsel

for the United States of America.

The hearing on defendant’s plea of guilty was in full compliance with Rule 11, Federal

Rules of Criminal Procedure, before the Magistrate Judge in open court and on the record.

In consideration of that hearing and the statements made by the defendant under oath on

the record and in the presence of counsel, the remarks of the Assistant United States Attorney and

of counsel for defendant,

I FIND as follows:

(1) that defendant understands the nature of the charge against him to which the plea is

offered;

(2) that the defendant understands his right to trial by jury, to persist in his plea of not

guilty, to the assistance of counsel at trial, to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, and
his right against compelled self-incrimination;

(3) that the defendant understands what the maximum possible sentence is, including the

effect of the supervised release term, and defendant understands that the Sentencing Guidelines

apply and that the Court may depart from those guidelines under some circumstances;

(4) that the plea of guilty by the defendant has been knowingly and voluntarily made and

is not the result of force or threats or of promises apart from the plea agreement between the

parties;

(5) that defendant is competent to plead guilty;

(6) that the defendant understands that his answers may later be used against him in a

prosecution for perjury or false statement;

(7) that there is a factual basis for the defendant’s plea; and further,

I RECOMMEND that the Court accept the defendant’s plea of guilty and that the

Defendant be adjudged guilty of the offense charged in the single-count Indictment, and have

sentence imposed. A Presentence Report has been ordered. Should this Report and

Recommendation be accepted and the Defendant adjudged guilty, sentencing will be scheduled

before Judge Theresa L. Springmann by separate order and notice. Objections to the Findings

and Recommendation are waived unless filed and served within fourteen (14) days. 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B).

DATED this 7th day of May 2014.

/s/ Roger B. Cosbey 

Roger B. Cosbey

United States Magistrate Judge

2
Joseph Paul YOUNG, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9384.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 22, 2013.

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