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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 3RD QUARTER
ENDED JUNE 28, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-27-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-25-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-28-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,358
<ALLOWANCES>                                       136
<INVENTORY>                                     27,634
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                45,049
<PP&E>                                          92,266
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,113
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 204,419
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,689
<BONDS>                                        139,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      45,585
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   204,419
<SALES>                                        115,840
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               115,840
<CGS>                                           88,927
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,663
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (206)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   136
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,666
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (2,324)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (2,324)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (2,324)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         567,041
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               45,549,565
<ALLOWANCES>                                (3,178,840)
<INVENTORY>                                  3,420,250
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            48,471,138
<PP&E>                                      45,438,079
<DEPRECIATION>                             (17,140,799)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             170,460,304
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       58,619,159
<BONDS>                                    155,501,286
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        109
<COMMON>                                           164
<OTHER-SE>                                 (44,903,335)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               170,460,304
<SALES>                                     59,271,846
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            59,271,846
<CGS>                                       56,039,908
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               56,039,908
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           4,897,288
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,665,350)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    21,260
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,686,610)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,686,610)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
##### 



EXHIBIT 99(a)
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES.OXLEY ACT OF 2002 Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
the undersigned officer of Lihir Gold Limited (the company) hereby certifies that: (i) The accompanying annual report on Form 20-F of the company for
the annual period ended December 31, 2004 (the report) fully
complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (ii) The information contained in the report fairly represents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the company. A signed original of this statement 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. By: Neil Swan(-s- NEIL GRANTT SWAN)/s/ Neil SwanChief Executive OfficerDate: June 28, 2005
 The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not
being filed as part of the report or as a separate disclosure document.
Exhibit 10.7



|                   |  |                                                                                         
|------------------ |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|B E A Systems, Inc |  | 2315 North First Street San Jose, California 95131 Phone: 408.570.8000 Fax: 408-570-8901

LOGO

March 22, 2006

Mark
Dentinger

2315 North First

St. San Jose, CA.

RE:    FY07 Compensation Awards

Dear Mark:

Im happy to advise that the Compensation Committee has approved the following FY07 Cash and Equity Rewards in recognition of your contributions over the last
fiscal year.

Base Salary and Bonus Potential

Effective May 1, 2006, your new annual base salary is $400,000,payable in accordance with our regular payroll cycle. This represents a 14.3% adjustment. Your On-Target-Earnings (OTE) is now $700,000payable in accordance
with our FY07 Corporate Bonus Plan. The Plan Document for the FY07 Corporate Bonus Plan will be sent under separate cover, however, a modification to the plan includes an annual payout (from the previous semi-annual payout schedule) as well as an
MBO provision for Succession Planning. Please reference the Plan Document for specifics.

Equity

The Compensation Committee also approved the granting of165,000 non-qualified stock options(standard 4 year vest) as well as 55,000 Restricted Stock
Units(RSUs) with a 4 year vest. The options will be priced on the next Unanimous Written Consent at Fair Market Value and you will receive the option and RSU agreements under separate cover.

Mark, I deeply appreciate your contributions and look forward to FY07 with optimism and excitement. Thanks for all of your hard work!

Sincerely,

Alfred
Exhibit 32.1


                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 on Form 10-Q of Franklin Street
Properties Corp. (the "Company") for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
the undersigned, George J. Carter, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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 operation
            of the Company.


Date:  May 6, 2005               /s/ George J. Carter
                                 -------------------------------------
                                 George J. Carter
                                 President and Chief Executive Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION
JUAN ARMSTRONG, et al., )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) No. 01 C 2963

) (MDL No. 1417)
LA SALLE BANK, N.A., )
)
Defendant. y

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Defendant. on February 28, 2007, moved for section 1292(b) certification. This court
had earlier issued a written suggestion of remand which explained why, reluctantly, we were
so proceeding. During the motion call on February 28, 2007, we orally (and briefly) explained
why we were prepared to enter the section 1292(b) certification, and we asked defendant to
draft an appropriate order.

Defendant came back with a draft order of 10 pages, certainly far more than plaintiffs
and this court anticipated. Plaintiffs object, particularly as they were not consulted (and they
should have been), and the order vacates, for now, the judgment of a suggestion to remand.
But we believe that the draft order fairly presents the position of this court, that the Court of
Appeals is entitled to know that position, and that the MDL Panel should not be burdened
with determining a suggestion of remand when it remains unclear whether or not that

suggestion may be withdrawn.

Soronea Move

A JAMES B. MORAN
nior Judge, U. S. District Court

Mach 2%, 2007.
Affirmed and Majority and Concurring Opinions filed August 20, 2019.

In the

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

NO. 14-18-00201-CR

ROBERTO GUTIERREZ, Appellant 

v. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 177th District Court 

Harris County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 1497729 

CONCURRING OPINION 

I concur in this court’s judgment affirming appellant’s conviction and 

sentence. 

A rational jury could have convicted appellant based solely on complainant’s 

testimony. We do not know if this jury would have convicted appellant based solely 

on complainant’s testimony. Appellant’s trial counsel waived a Texas Rule of 

Evidence 403 objection to the thumbnails of photos on appellant’s cell phone that 

were described at trial as “disgusting.” While appellate review of the admission of 
2

the individual “highly pixilated” photographs is required, as a practical matter it can 

do appellant no good. The jury was informed of what was on the thumbnails. 

I cannot conclude that appellant’s conviction was unaffected by the admission 

of the thumbnails. Perhaps if a timely rule 403 objection had been made and the trial 

court granted the objection in whole or in part, things might have been different.

But the evidence that was admitted did convince the jury of appellant’s guilt. 

Agreeing we must affirm, I concur. 

 

 /s/ Charles A. Spain

 Justice 

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Zimmerer, and Spain. (Spain, J., concurring.)

Publish—TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 Amendment to the Annual Report of Asta Funding, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K/A for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Gary Stern, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 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)
           of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

           (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
           material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the
           Company as of the dates presented and the consolidated result of
           operations of the Company for the periods presented.



         /S/ Gary Stern
-----------------------------------
Gary Stern
President and Chief Executive Officer





This Certification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
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 on Form 10-Q of Franklin Street Properties Corp. (the “Company”) for the period ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, John G. Demeritt, Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to his knowledge:





(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:  August 4, 2009
/s/ John G. Demeritt
John G. Demeritt
Chief Financial Officer
#### James Vodola, Respondent, v William Lambert et al., Defendants, and Ruby Lambert, Appellant.

In an action to recover possession of a certain improved parcel of real property, defendant Ruby Lambert appeals (1) from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Ruskin, J.), dated August 13, 1984, which, *inter alia,*ordered that plaintiff be put in full possession of the property, and (2) from so much of an order of the same court, dated October 23, 1984, as denied her motion to vacate the judgment.

Order reversed, insofar as appealed from, on the law and the facts and as a matter of discretion, motion granted, judgment vacated, and a new trial granted. The new trial shall be before a different Judge.

Appeal from the judgment dismissed as academic in view of our disposition of the appeal from the order.

Appellant is awarded one bill of costs.

The trial court erred in denying defendant Ruby Lambert’s motion to vacate the judgment *(see,*CPLR 5015 [a] [2], [3]). The material evidence submitted in support of the motion consisted, *inter alia,*of an affidavit by defendant Ruby Lambert’s husband and the plaintiffs Grand Jury testimony in a criminal action in which his father was convicted of "unlawfully, wilfully & knowingly making extortionate extensions of credit, using and implicating use of threats to collect said extensions *642of credit and conspiring to do so”. The affidavit of Ruby Lambert’s husband indicated that the conveyance of the subject property to plaintiff was made in consideration of gambling and loan-sharking debts that he owed to plaintiff’s father, and thereby set forth a sufficient challenge to plaintiff’s claim of entitlement to the property that a new trial is appropriate (General Obligations Law §§ 5-413, 5-511). Also, plaintiff’s Grand Jury testimony contained statements which were materially inconsistent with his trial testimony. Thus, while at trial plaintiff denied ever being present during a conversation between his father and Mr. Lambert at which title to the subject property was discussed, denied knowing that Lambert was a gambler and testified that he only discussed title to the subject property "in passing” with his father, during the Grand Jury proceedings plaintiff testified that his father told him to take title to the property because that was the only way that he (plaintiff’s father) would get back the money Lambert owed him, and he acknowledged knowing that Lambert was a gambler. That testimony indicates that during trial plaintiff attempted to downplay the role of his father in the conveyance of the subject property to him, while during the course of Grand Jury proceedings, he acknowledged that he took title to the property at his father’s direction in payment of money Lambert owed the father. Although motions of this type are addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court *(see, Matter of Cristo,*92 AD2d 691), on the record before us we conclude that such discretion was improvidently exercised and that in the interest of justice a new trial is required. Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.
#### In the Matter of Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc., Now Known as J.P. Morgan Securities, LLC, et al., Respondents, v Interna*532tional Capital & Management Company LLC, Appellant.

[947 NYS2d 23]

Amended and superseding judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard J. Fried, J.), entered October 25, 2011, awarding petitioners the total amount of $339,698.94, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order and judgment (one paper), same court and Justice, entered June 20, 2011, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as moot.

The arbitration panel did not exceed its powers or violate a strong and well defined public policy by awarding attorneys’ fees *(see Matter of Goldberg v Thelen Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner LLP,*52 AD3d 392 [2008], *lv denied*11 NY3d 749 [2008]). The record reflects that the parties consented to the arbitration panel’s consideration of an award of attorneys’ fees in their pleadings and in agreeing to the application of rules that permitted such an award *(see Matter of Warner Bros. Records [PPX Enters.],*7 AD3d 330, 330-331 [2004]). Respondent reiterated its demand for attorneys’ fees during the hearing, thereby acknowledging the power of the panel to award fees, in contrast to the actions of the litigants in *Matter of Matza v Oshman, Helfenstein & Matza*(33 AD3d 493 [2006]) and *Matter of Stewart Tabori & Chang (Stewart)*(282 AD2d 385 [2001], *lv denied*96 NY2d 718 [2001]). Moreover, respondent did not attempt to withdraw its consent until its closing statement at the conclusion of the proceedings, which spanned more than two years, when it was apparent that the arbitration panel was likely to award petitioner attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with the claim that respondent withdrew. Concur — Mazzarelli, *J.P.,*Saxe, Moskowitz, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

     18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 0F 2002

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Modern MFG Services, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2002, as amended, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Terry Burke, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting 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 result of operations of the Company.

\s\                Terry BurkeTerry BurkeChief Financial Officer

November 27, 2002

----
#### Rommel Dela Cruz TEOPACO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 09-73219.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*450Submitted June 15, 2011.*

Filed June 29, 2011.

Rommel Déla Cruz Teopaco, Artesia, CA, pro se.

Joseph D. Hardy, Jr., Esquire, Trial, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Rommel Déla Cruz Teopaco, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. *Mohammed v. Gonzales,*400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

*451The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Teopaco’s motion to reopen based on ineffective assistance of counsel because he failed to comply with the requirements set forth in *Matter of Lozada,*19 I. *&*N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), and the ineffective assistance he alleges is not plain on the face of the record. *See Reyes v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 592, 597-99 (9th Cir.2004).

Teopaco’s claim regarding the agency’s failure to address his eligibility for adjustment of status is moot because the Form 1-130, Petition for Alien Relative, filed on Teopaco’s behalf has been denied and the marriage is being dissolved.

We lack jurisdiction to review Teo-paco’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim against his most recent counsel because he failed to raise that issue before the agency. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not raised before the agency).

We deny Teopaco’s request to hold his petition for review in abeyance so that a new Form 1-130 may be filed on his behalf.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 2 

Informing the House of Representatives that a quorum of the Senate is 

assembled. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 5, 2011 

Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. MCCONNELL) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Informing the House of Representatives that a quorum of 

the Senate is assembled. 

1 Resolved, That the Secretary inform the House of 

2 Representatives that a quorum of the Senate is assembled 

3 and that the Senate is ready to proceed to business. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS