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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM BOTH
THE MARCH 31, 1998 BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF INCOME AND EXPENSES
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000711512
<NAME> AMERICAN REPUBLIC REALTY FUND I
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          67,404
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      17,171,225
<DEPRECIATION>                               9,197,393
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,776,999
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                     10,739,160
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,959,753)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,776,999
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               638,847
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               541,810
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             233,240
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (124,463)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (11.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CAUSE NO. 1:14-CR-5

)

DEANTRE L. ROGERS )

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 October 23, 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 Count 2 of the three-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 23rd day of October 2014.

/s/ Roger B. Cosbey 

Roger B. Cosbey

United States Magistrate Judge

2
Terrance FRANCIS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-7130.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Petition writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Terrell Lamar McBRIDE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9777.

Supreme Court of the United States

July 22, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           JAN-1-1999
<PERIOD-START>                              OCT-3-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                JAN-1-1999
<CASH>                                            1707
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    23231
<ALLOWANCES>                                       484
<INVENTORY>                                      25689
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 53233
<PP&E>                                           35990
<DEPRECIATION>                                   31255
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   70294
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            38841
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           118
<OTHER-SE>                                       26321
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     70294
<SALES>                                          39338
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 39338
<CGS>                                            29326 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    29326
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  9777
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   795
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 193
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    116
<INCOME-TAX>                                         4
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                112
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       112
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.01
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

RASHAWN J. WILLIAMS,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 374 MAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 7th day of February, 2023

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
Clifford JACKSON, petitioner, v. Timothy DOORY.

No. 12-8198.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 28, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
EXHIBIT 99
----------




                       SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION
                       -------------------------



     The following statement is provided by the undersigned to accompany
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2003,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be
deemed filed pursuant to any provision of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 or any other securities law:

     Each of the undersigned certifies that the foregoing Report on
Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m) and that the information
contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of CARLYLE REAL ESTATE
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP - XIII.




    By: /s/  H. Rigel Barber            By: /s/  Gailen J. Hull
        ---------------------------         ---------------------------
        H. Rigel Barber                     Gailen J. Hull
        Chief Executive Officer             Chief Financial Officer and
                                            Principal Accounting Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

SEAN MICHAEL ADEE,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 180 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 22nd day of September, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CASE NO.: 1:14-CR-22-TLS 

)

MARTIN GONZALEZ MEDINA )

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the Findings and Recommendation of the United States

Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 36], filed on November 25, 2014. The Defendant has waived objection

to the Findings and Recommendation, and the Court, being duly advised, adopts the Findings and

Recommendation [ECF No. 36] in its entirety and accepts the recommended disposition. The Court

ACCEPTS the Defendant’s plea of guilty to the sole offense charged in the Indictment and

ADJUDGES the Defendant guilty of such offense. 

The notice of sentencing and pre-sentence scheduling deadlines will be issued by separate

order.

SO ORDERED on December 10, 2014.

 s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

THERESA L. SPRINGMANN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State v. Barfield, Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-4824.]

NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of De cisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published.

S LIP O PINION N O . 2018-O HIO -4824
T HE S TATE OF O HIO , A PPELLEE , v . B ARFIELD , A PPELLANT . [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State v. Barfield, Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-4824.] Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed on authority of State v. Carnes. (No. 2017-1623

― Submitted August 31, 2018

― Decided December 7, 2018.)
A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-160768, 2017-Ohio-8243.

_________________ {¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeal s is affirmed on the authority of
State v. Carnes , ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2018-Ohio-3256, ___ N.E.3d ___.
O’D ONNELL , K ENNEDY , F RENCH , D E W INE , and D E G ENARO , JJ., concur. O’C ONNOR , C.J., dissents.
F ISCHER , J., not participating.

_________________ Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Pros ecuting Attorney, and Alex Scott Havlin, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 Raymond T. Faller, Hamilton County P ublic Defender, and Joshua A. Thompson, Assistant Public Defender , for appellant, Willie Barfield.

_________________
**Exhibit 32(a)**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE**

**SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Zep Inc. (the “Corporation”) for the year ended August 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, the Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation, certifies 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 Corporation.

 

 
| /s/   John K. Morgan                                                     |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| John   K. Morgan                                                         |   |
| Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer |   |
| November 1,   2011                                                  |   |

 

[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Zep Inc. and will be retained by Zep Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]

 

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

HAMMOND DIVISION 

THOMAS BRODZIK 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

CONTRACTORS STEEL, INC., et al., 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 2:13-cv-438 JD 

OPINION AND ORDER

The Plaintiff, Thomas Brodzik, filed a four-count complaint in this matter, asserting 

claims for FMLA interference (Count 1) and retaliation (Count 2), disability discrimination 

(Count 3), and age discrimination (Count 4) against his former employer, Contractors Steel, Inc., 

and his former supervisor, Marty Haendiges. The Defendants moved to dismiss Counts 1 through 

3 for failure to state a claim, and this Court referred that motion to the magistrate judge for a 

report and recommendation. On September 2, 2014, Magistrate Judge Cherry issued an amended 

report and recommendation in which he recommended that the Court grant the motion to dismiss 

as to each of the three counts at issue, but with leave to amend. [DE 28]. Mr. Brodzik 

subsequently filed a statement in which he indicates that he is in agreement with those 

recommendations and wishes to file an amended complaint. [DE 29]. The Defendants have not 

filed any objection. 

After referring a dispositive motion to a magistrate judge, a district court has discretion to 

accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations of the magistrate 

judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the district 

court must undertake a de novo review “only of those portions of the magistrate judge’s 

disposition to which specific written objection is made.” See Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 
2 

F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999) (citing Goffman v. Gross, 59 F.3d 668, 671 (7th Cir. 1995)). If no 

objection or only a partial objection is made, the court reviews those unobjected portions for 

clear error. Id. Under the clear error standard, a court will only overturn a magistrate judge’s 

ruling if the court is left with “the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” 

Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co., Ltd., 126 F.3d 926, 943 (7th Cir.1997). 

Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation and finding no clear error therein, the 

Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation [DE 28] in its entirety. The Defendants’ 

motion to dismiss [DE 8] is GRANTED. Counts 1 through 3 of Plaintiff’s complaint are 

DISMISSED without prejudice, and Plaintiff is GRANTED 30 days within which to file an 

amended complaint. 

 SO ORDERED. 

 ENTERED: September 22, 2014 

 

 /s/ JON E. DEGUILIO 

 Judge 

 United States District Court
EXHIBIT 32.1

 

 

**CERTIFICATION**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**AND RULE 13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b)**

**OF THE U.S. SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934**

 

In connection with the Annual Report of ScandiumInternational Mining Corp. (formerly EMC Metals Corp.) (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31,2013 (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dated: January20, 2015 		/s/ George F. Putnam			

                                      George F. Putnam

                                      PrincipalExecutive Officer
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 18

- 00092

- CV
RAMONA ROGERS, M. D. , MODESTO ZAMBRANO, STEPHANIE CUMPIAN, ROLANDO FLORES, HECT OR ONTIVEROS, PRISCI LLA NIETO, SONIA HERNANDEZ

- KEEBLE, BL AS ORTIZ, JR., DAVID MORON, M. D., JAIME FLORES AND RIO GRANDE STATE CENTER

v. DAVID SAXON BAGLEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF TH E

ESTATE OF JEREMIAH R AY BAGLEY

On Appeal from the 444th District Court of Cameron County , Texas Trial Cause No. 2017

- DCL

- 00875

- H

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having co nsidered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appellan t s

. We further order this decision certified belo w for observance. June 13, 2019
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. 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 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-10947 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee

v. GABRIEL CALIXTO-AGUIRRE Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 5:04-CR-88-2
Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Gabriel CalixtoAguirre has moved for leave towithdrawand has filed a briefin accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Calixto-Aguirre has not filed a response. “This Court must examine the basis of itsjurisdiction, on its own motion, ifnecessary.” Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). Article III, § 2, United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 24, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 06-10947

2 of the Constitution limits federal court jurisdiction to actual cases and controversies. S pencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998). The case-or-controversy requirement demands that “some concrete and continuing injury other than the now-ended incarceration or parole-some ‘collateral consequence’ of the conviction-must exist if the suit is to be maintained.” Id. During the pendency of this appeal, Calixto-Aguirre completed the sentence that was imposed upon the revocation of his supervised release. The order revoking Calixto-Aguirre’s supervised release imposed no further term of supervised release. Accordingly, there is no case or controversy for this court to address, and the appeal is dismissed as moot. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is denied as unnecessary. APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION DENIED.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 24, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27527-27528]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12669]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Ocean Freight Forwarder License; Applicants

    Notice is hereby given that the following applicants have filed 
with the Federal Maritime Commission applications for licenses as ocean 
freight forwarders pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 
(46 U.S.C. app. 1718 and 46 CFR 510).
    Persons knowing of any reason why any of the following applicants 
should not receive a license are requested to contact the Office of 
Freight Forwarders, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, D.C. 
20573.

Ocean Trade International, Inc., 9600 N.W. 25th Street, Suite 2D, 
Miami, FL 33172; Officers: Jaime S. Blanco, President, Ana M. Blanco, 
Vice President.
Pro Cargo Services, Corp., 7225 N.W. 25th Street, Suite 210, Miami, FL 
33122; Officers: Alfredo M. Puig, President, Jesus F. Couso, Vice 
President.
P&P Group, Corp., 1862 N.W. 82nd Ave., Miami, FL 33126; Officers: 
Gaspar Garces, President, Maria Eugenia Garces, Vice President.

    Dated: May 19, 1995.

    [[Page 27528]] By the Federal Maritime Commission.
Joseph C. Polking,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-12669 Filed 5-23-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-M
case 2:14-cv-00090-JTM-PRC   document 4   filed 05/05/14   page 1 of 3

case 2:14-cv-00090-JTM-PRC   document 4   filed 05/05/14   page 2 of 3

case 2:14-cv-00090-JTM-PRC   document 4   filed 05/05/14   page 3 of 3
COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 2024 KW 0250

VERSUS

CARL ENGLAND MAY 20, 2024

In Re: Carl England, applying for supervisory writs, 22nd

Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Tammany, No. 

396443. 

BEFORE: MCCLENDON, HESTER, AND MILLER, JJ. 

WRIT DENIED. 

PMC

CHH

SMM

PURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

DUTY CLERK OF COURT

FOR THE COURT