alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
##### 



S/M
Real Estate Fund VII, Ltd. EXHIBIT 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of S/M Real Estate Fund VII, Ltd. (the
Partnership) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2004, as filed with
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Sandy
Robison, Chief Financial Officer of the general partner of the Partnership,
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 Partnership. Date: May 10, 2004
    
    
    
    /s/ Sandy RobisonName:
    
    Sandy RobisonTitle:
    
    Chief Financial Officer, Vice President,
Secretary and Controller of
SM7 Apartment Investors Inc., a general partner
 16
Daniel Alan BIRO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-4015

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed June 11, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 15

- 00003

- CV

CITY OF MCGREGOR

, Appellant

v.

LAURA GARRETT, INDIV IDUALLY,

AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE

OF XX, DECEASED, HER MINOR SON, &

AS A WRONGFUL DEATH BENEFICIARY;

AND RICKY THOMAS, AS REPRESENTATIVE

OF THE ESTATE OF XX, DECEASED, HIS MINOR

SON, & AS A WRONGFUL DEATH BENEFICIARY

, Appellee s

From the 170th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014

- 1793

- 4

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellees have filed an “ Unopposed Motion to Dismiss Appeal Without

Deciding the Merits of the Appeal. ” The motion states that the parties have settled the

dispute underlying this appeal and requests that we dismiss the appeal withoutCity of McGregor v. Garrett Page 2

deciding the merits and remand the case to the trial court for entry of judgment in

accordance with the parties’ agreement.

The motion i s granted. Accordingly, we set aside the trial court’s j udgment

without regard to the merits , dismiss th is appeal , and remand the case to the trial court

for rendition of judgment in accordance with the parties’ agreement. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

.

42.1(a)(2)( B)

.

REX D. DAVIS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Dismissed and remanded

Opini on delivered and filed March 26, 2015

[CV06]
: OFFICE OF THE AmORNNGENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN 2i!tzv==

# !-.

### b&~able 

### to find; 

### but both of tho60 ira ruditl-ku of the old

hm8 Court of bmti8, dellvwed in th8 yW 1.880, and rrftt8n b7 OIU Of %%88’ plo8t **-t** And **mawoOed** jUdQ88, -8idi4~‘,:

### liozmrsbl@

wilt.t#rr tiee &81X, Page 7 608


### "We are of opblan, howovw, that #a

**‘ th0**  **OViltbXlW :ddilOti**  **58 ~tU8UfffOiW~**  **in**



### ralw, ia o r&s pro pmriwt. smw **lpndr of**  **the 0f?emo**  **had bun**  **Goduo8d, ln** 

**ft U&8**  **Mrt Of**  **t$lO dO8Wf~tiW**  

### identityOf **the OffonW,**  **and should**  **hay. boon**  **proven. ml1**  **t; sac,**  **at&O; kl**  **‘ C-8,**  

### 2531 **tt~tOn V.**  **m %tBtO,**  **1 3-8**  **ct. Aw.**  **168) 3080**  **v. w**  

### Btato, **1 TWA8**  Qt. 

### Am. hOOi ttat8on **0. !fb**  **tlbt+ 5**  ***@X88** ct. **&Q. 12.**  **lbder~tho authority**  

### of **th8 above**  **oare8,** you era r88peot**ml3 Bdti8.d**  **th8t ?OW**  **third** QUO8tiCUk UU8t **b0 BMWl** **’ Od**  **in** th8 **WgBtfVO, U&O88**  **w BOOWOd**  **rUpFO8fiy alOOt**  **t0 b0**  **tlhd tULd8r**  **the ~POV181QB8**  **Of th@**  

## old **hr. I[n**  

## OTOlXt Of **8UQh PUOtO**  **eV8ZlttUb** 

### lity, **th.** 

### tl’+ ***Odd WDOO88W11J**  b. in th0 bi8tl’iOt OOWt, a8 

## th8t **OO?Wt hU**  **OSO1*8fVO** jWi8~OthXi in f8104 -8.8.

&i BMWaF t0 JOW fOWth qm8tiOlX it i. OUP OpLniOXl that’“pwdlug lndiotwnt8 wy b8 legally trd8forrod fran th8 

### dirtsiot 

### court to the oaunt~omrt 

## for trial. See the **8ubdlvl** 8fon an Vmn8ier 

### of %a~808 l 

### 12 tax. Jw. 422* Sea. 135, et **8@Q)** Ap$fO& **419, (lOti**  **Of 0Phil.d**  **?POt%dlUW.** 

## A 8~08tOd fOl'B 

### oforderappeaminl2liu.#ur. 433.

Dar the WI re88oM s88igned in BMVOring mUr third qUO8t;~, it 

### in UWVW t0 

### PW fifth OBW that i Del'- 8on~~Botle **in the**  distl?lUt **kWUFt** for **the**

## . - 609
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

SOUTH BEND DIVISION 

THOMAS LEGG, JR., ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Cause No. 3:12-cv-844-JTM-CAN 

 ) 

NEW ENGLAND COMPOUNDING ) 

PHARMACY, INC. a/k/a NEW ) 

ENGLAND COMPOUNDING CENTER; ) 

AMERIDOSE, LLC; ALAUNUS ) 

PHARMACEUTICAL, LLC; BARRY ) 

CADDEN; LISA CADDEN; ) 

and GREGORY CONIGLIARO, ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

Pursuant to L.R. 6.1., Defendants Barry Cadden, Lisa Cadden and Greg Conigliaro 

(“Defendants”), by counsel, hereby move this Court for an extension of time to respond to 

Plaintiff’s Complaint, up to and including March 25, 2013. Defendants’ Answer is currently due 

February 22, 2013. Plaintiff’s counsel has been consulted and has no objection to the requested 

extension. 

WHEREFORE, Defendants, by counsel, pray for an Order allowing Defendants up to and 

including March 25, 2013 to respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint, and for all other relief just and 

proper in the premises. 

case 3:12-cv-00844-JTM-CAN document 18 filed 02/14/13 page 1 of 2
2 

LEWIS WAGNER LLP 

By: /s/ Kameelah Shaheed-Diallo 

DINA M. COX, #18590-49 

KAMEELAH SHAHEED-DIALLO, #28058-49 

ROBERT M. BAKER IV, #25471-49 

JANELLE M. KILIES, #30708-49 

 Attorneys for Defendants 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing has been filed with the Clerk of the Court 

on February 14, 2013 using the CM/ECF system which sent notification of this filing to the 

following: 

Douglas A. Mulvaney 

Stutsman & Mulvaney 

1300 Cassopolis Street 

P.O. Box 1337 

Elkhart, Indiana 46515 

Counsel for Plaintiff 

 /s/ Kameelah Shaheed-Diallo 

 KAMEELAH SHAHEED-DIALLO 

LEWIS WAGNER, LLP 

501 Indiana Avenue, Suite 200 

Indianapolis, IN 46202-6150 

Telephone: (317) 237-0500 

Facsimile: (317) 630-2790 

kshaheed-diallo@lewiswagner.com \\lwfilesrv\DOCS\NECC\15 - Legg\Federal Court Action\2nd_MET.doc

case 3:12-cv-00844-JTM-CAN document 18 filed 02/14/13 page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 93 (Monday, May 15, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 25935]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11834]



[[Page 25935]]

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 2208]


Department of State Briefing on Indigenous Issues in the United 
Nations; Notice of Meeting

    The Department of State, led by the Bureau of Democracy, Human 
Rights, and Labor, in conjunction with other offices in the Department 
of State, will hold a briefing on June 3, 1995 to discuss recent 
developments on indigenous issues within the United Nations system. The 
briefing will follow the Northwest Regional Listening Conference being 
convened by the Department of Justice for tribal leaders in Salt Lake 
City on June 2. The briefing will be open to the public.
    The focus of the briefing will be the indigenous issues discussed 
at the 51st session of the United Nations Human Rights Commission in 
Geneva, including the status of governmental consideration of the draft 
``United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.'' 
This briefing is part of an ongoing effort to inform interested persons 
and organizations of international developments on indigenous issues.
    The briefing is scheduled for Saturday, June 3, 1995, at 9 a.m. at 
the Red Lion Inn, Salt Lake City, Utah. Please notify Maryedna Proctor 
at (202) 647-1696 no later than May 30, 1995 if you plan to attend. 
Please be prepared to have photo identification with you in order to be 
admitted.

    Dated: May 9, 1995.
Charles P. Henry,
Director, Office of External Affairs, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights 
and Labor.
[FR Doc. 95-11834 Filed 5-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-09-M
case 3:13-cv-00071-JD-CAN document 20 filed 11/05/13 page 1 of 1
##### 



Exhibit 10.25
  st
 
 Initial Public Offering
   Citigroup IPO Units Company Warrant Representative Prospectus Underwriters Section
1
 Business Combination Founders Common
Stock Founders
Shares IPO Shares Founders Warrants Founders Units Sponsors Warrants Co-Investment Units Co-Investment Shares Co-Investment Warrants




---



##### 



Locked-Up
Securities Associated With
  Consummation Date Termination Date Trust Account Claim




---



##### 



provided, however, Berggruen Holdings
  Exchange Act




---



##### 



provided, however, provided, however, Restricted Period th
 Exhibit A




---



##### 



Information
    [Signature Page to Follow]




---



##### 



By:
    /s/ Paul GuentherName:
    Paul Guenther




---



##### 



Exhibit A
 Paul B. Guenther
매모그램

매모그램은 적은 양의 x-선을 사용한 유

방 촬영을 말합니다.

매모그램을 받아야 합니까?

매모그램을 통해 생명을 구할 수

있습니다. 현재 매모그램은 유방암을

조기에 발견할 수 있는가장 좋은

방법입니다. 매모그램 검사를 통해

본인이나 담당의사가 느끼기엔 너무

작은 가슴의 멍울을 발견할 수 있습니다.

매모그램 검사를 통해 모든 문제를 다

발견할 수는 없습니다. 그러므로 모든

여성은 담당의사와 상의하여 유방을

검사하여야 합니다. 만약 유방에서

다음과 같은 변화를 발견할 경우 의사나

진료소에 연락하십시오:

• 멍울

• 유방 피부가 두꺼워짐

• 유두에서 분비물이 발생하거나 유두의

모양이 변함

매모그램 검사는 어떻게 진행됩니

까?

• 셔츠와 브래지어를 벗습니다.

• X-선 기계 앞에 섭니다.

• 작은 판 위에 유방을 올려둡니다.

• 투명한 플라스틱 판이 몇 초간 유방을 누르게

됩니다. 일부 여성들은 이 때의 압박이 다소

불편하다고 하지만, 대부분의 경우 통증을 느끼지

않습니다

• 촬영 기사가 유방 사진을 몇 장 촬영합니다.

• X-선 사진을 판독할 수 있는 전문의가 가슴에

변화가 있는지 검사합니다.

검사 결과를 어떻게 알 수 있습니까?

매모그램 검사 후 30일 내에 본인 및 의료 제공자가

서면 결과보고서를 받습니다.

• 결과를 통보 받지 못하셨다면 연락하십시오. 모든

것이 정상이라고 단정하지 마십시오.

• 매모그램 사진을 요청하십시오. 이는 CD 에

저장될 수 있습니다.보관하여 나중에 받는

매모그램 검사와 비교하십시오.

식약청(FDA)의 역할은 무엇입니까?

식약청은 미국 내에서 매모그램 검사를 실시하는

시설에 합격 인증을 발급합니다. 이는 유방촬영

품질 기준 보장법 (Mammography Quality

Standards Act; MQSA)라 불리는 법에 근거합니다.

식약청은 시설과 그 곳에서 일하는 사람들을

검사합니다.

식약청 여성 건강소

www.fda.gov/womens 
U.S. DEPA RTMENT OF HEALT H & HUMAN SERVICES 

Public Hcahh Semice 

Food • nd DmgAdminisk"'" 

CERTIFIED MAMMOGRAPHY FACILITY 

소 1 (l':^_ ``````내 1H 

매모그램

내가 검사 받는 시설이 인증된 

곳인지 어떻게 알 수 있습니까?

식약청은 다음과 같이 매모그램 검사를

시행하는 곳에 대하여 인증시설 목록을

보관하고 있습니다:

• 개인 병원

• 진료소

• 병원

• X-선 센터

• 이동 차량

근처에 있는 인증시설을 찾으신다면

식약청 홈페이지에 접속하셔서 zip 코드를

입력하십시오:

www.fda.gov/findmammography

또한 방문하신 시설에서 식약청이 발급한

유방촬영 품질 기준 보장법 인증서 (FDA

MQSA Certificate)를 찾으십시오.

디지털 매모그램은무엇입니까?

지털 매모그램은 2D(2차원) 또는 3D(3 차원)

으로 불립니다. 디지털 매모그램은 X-선과

함께 컴퓨터를 이용하여 유방 사진을 만들고

보여줍니다. 이 사진은 일반적인 매모그램과

같은 방법으로 찍게 됩니다. 더 알고

싶으시다면 귀하의 진료소에 문의하십시오.

매모그램 검사를 받기 전에 더

알아야 할 것이 있습니까?

• 검사를 받으러 가는 날에는 팔 밑이나

가슴에 탈취제, 향수, 로션, 또는 파우더를

바르지 마십시오. 이러한 것들이 X-선

사진에 나타날 수 있습니다.

• 유방 확대술을 받은 경우, 진료소에 방문

약속을 잡을 때 이를 알려주십시오.

촬영해야 할지도 모릅니다.

• 똑바로 앉거나 팔을 드는 일, 혹은 혼자서

옷을 갈아입기 힘든 신체적 장애를 가지고

있는 경우, 이를 진료소에 알려주십시오.

휠체어 또는 스쿠터를 사용하시는 경우에도

진료소에 알려주십시오.

• 종교적인 이유로 발생할 수 있는 이슈가

있다면 이를 어떻게 대처할지에 대해

직원과 상담하십시오.

본 자료는 식약청(FDA)의 여성 건강소에서 만들어졌습니다. 여성 건강에 관한 다른 자료를

보기 원하시면 www.fda.gov/womens 를 참조하십시오.

매모그램 (KOREAN) 2017
INTERCOLLEGIATE BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC., petitioner, v. COPYRIGHT ROYALTY BOARD, et al.

No. 12-928.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 28, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

SOUTH BEND DIVISION 

THOMAS LEGG, JR., ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Cause No. 3:12-CV-844-JTM-CAN 

 ) 

NEW ENGLAND COMPOUNDING ) 

PHARMACY, INC. a/k/a NEW ) 

ENGLAND COMPOUNDING CENTER; ) 

AMERIDOSE, LLC; ALAUNUS ) 

PHARMACEUTICAL, LLC; BARRY ) 

CADDEN; LISA CADDEN; ) 

and GREGORY CONIGLIARO, ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

APPEARANCE BY ATTORNEY IN CIVIL CASE

To the Clerk of this Court and all parties of record: 

Please enter my appearance as counsel in this case for Defendants, ALAUNUS 

PHARMACEUTICAL, LLC; BARRY CADDEN; LISA CADDEN; and GREGORY 

CONIGLIARO. 

I certify that I am admitted to practice in this Court. 

LEWIS WAGNER LLP 

By: /s/ Dina M. Cox 

DINA M. COX, #18590-49 

 Attorneys for Defendants 

 

case 3:12-cv-00844-JTM-CAN document 10 filed 01/09/13 page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing has been filed with the Clerk of the Court 

on January 9, 2013 using the CM/ECF system which sent notification of this filing to the 

following: 

Douglas A. Mulvaney 

Stutsman & Mulvaney 

1300 Cassopolis Street 

P.O. Box 1337 

Elkhart, Indiana 46515 

/s/ Dina M. Cox 

 DINA M. COX 

LEWIS WAGNER, LLP 

501 Indiana Avenue, Suite 200 

Indianapolis, IN 46202 

Phone: (317) 237-0500 

FAX: (317) 630-2790 

dcox@lewiswagner.com Q:\NECC\15 - Legg\Federal Court Action\appearance_DMC_Alaunus.docx

case 3:12-cv-00844-JTM-CAN document 10 filed 01/09/13 page 2 of 2
In re Michael E. TILTON, petitioner.

No. 12-9382.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 99.1





                            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 Quarterly Report of Alpha Technologies Group, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending April 27, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("Report"), I,
Lawrence Butler, Chief Executive 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/ Lawrence Butler
----------------------
Lawrence Butler
Chief Executive Officer
June 11, 2003


     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
     been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
     furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
     request.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                      Statement of Chief Executive Officer
         Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code


         Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the
undersigned, Joseph L. Castle II, the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of
Castle Energy Corporation (the "Company"), hereby certifies that:

I.       The Company's Form 10-Q Quarterly Report for the period June 30, 2002
         (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
         the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and


II.      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         the Company.

Dated: August 16, 2002                                  /s/ JOSEPH L. CASTLE II
       ---------------                                  ------------------------
                                                        Joseph L. Castle II
                                                        Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1359 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 Union Calendar No. 104
109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1359

                          [Report No. 109-167]

 To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to extend the pilot 
             program for alternative water source projects.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 17, 2005

Mr. Davis of Florida introduced the following bill; which was referred 
         to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

                             July 13, 2005

  Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole 
       House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed
 [Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed 
                               in italic]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to extend the pilot 
             program for alternative water source projects.

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

<DELETED>SECTION 1. PILOT PROGRAM FOR ALTERNATIVE WATER SOURCE 
              PROJECTS.</DELETED>

<DELETED>    Section 220(j) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
(33 U.S.C. 1300(j)) is amended in the first sentence--</DELETED>
        <DELETED>    (1) by striking ``$75,000,000'' and inserting 
        ``$125,000,000''; and</DELETED>
        <DELETED>    (2) by striking ``2002 through 2004'' and 
        inserting ``2006 through 2010''.</DELETED>

SECTION 1. PILOT PROGRAM FOR ALTERNATIVE WATER SOURCE PROJECTS.

    Section 220(j) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
U.S.C. 1300(j)) is amended in the first sentence by striking 
``$75,000,000 for fiscal years 2002 through 2004'' and inserting 
``$125,000,000''.
                                                 Union Calendar No. 104

109th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1359

                          [Report No. 109-167]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to extend the pilot 
             program for alternative water source projects.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             July 13, 2005

  Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole 
       House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed
```
ALABAMA, et al., petitioners, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-884.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2013.

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

Justice SCALIA dissents.
Steven PAPPAS, petitioner, v. Doreen FARR.

No. 12-1080.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 10, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, denied.
Sohail CHAUDHRY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9528.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

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

Justice KAGAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6411
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ROBERT GARFIELD MCKEITHAN, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CR-91-106-R, CA-95-851) Submitted: August 22, 1996 Decided: September 4, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Garfield McKeithan, Appellant Pro Se. John Granville Douglass, Robert William Jaspen, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. McKeithan , Nos. CR-91-106-R; CA-95-851 (E.D. Va. Mar. 4, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Ralph MULLINS, Jr., petitioner, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security.

No. 12-8715.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                            DEC-29-1996
<PERIOD-END>                              MAR-30-1997
<CASH>                                        484,479
<SECURITIES>                                  487,581
<RECEIVABLES>                               1,421,489
<ALLOWANCES>                                  157,882
<INVENTORY>                                   491,470
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            3,324,645
<PP&E>                                      1,591,714
<DEPRECIATION>                                865,256
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              4,222,794
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       1,631,628
<BONDS>                                        40,000
<COMMON>                                           73
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                  2,483,827
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                4,222,794
<SALES>                                     2,114,618
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            2,114,618
<CGS>                                       1,053,194
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               1,857,608
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                4,161
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              1,730
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               328,693
<INCOME-TAX>                                  105,182
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           223,511
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                  223,511
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.58
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.58
        


</TABLE>