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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                        21983261
<SECURITIES>                                  15170459
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              37395733
<PP&E>                                         6266278
<DEPRECIATION>                                 4636622
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                39188280
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          3722951
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    5573937
<COMMON>                                        142533
<OTHER-SE>                                    29533928
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  39188280
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              19456014
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 20243110
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (787096)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (787096)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (787096)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.08)
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, in
her capacity as an officer of SPACEHAB, Incorporated ("SPACEHAB"), that, to the
best of her knowledge, the Quarterly Report of SPACEHAB on Form 10-Q for the
period ended March 31, 2003, fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operation of SPACEHAB.

Date: May 14, 2003



                                           /s/ Michael E. Kearney
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Michael E. Kearney
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer






A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to SPACEHAB, INC. and will be retained by SPACEHAB, INC. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Charles Jordt v. The State.

Article 765 of the Penal Code reads as follows: “If any person shall steal any horse, gelding, mare, colt, ass, or mule, he shall be punished by confinement in the penitentiary not less than five nor more-than fifteen years.” (Paschal’s Dig., Art. 2409, Note 686.) A gelding is not a horse, but a eunuch; and an indictment for stealing a horse is not sustained by proof that the accused stole a gelding.

Appeal from Colorado. The case was tried before Hon. I. B. McFarland, one of the district judges.

The defendant was indicted for stealing “ a certain sorrel horse,” &e. The judge charged the jury to determine from the evidence whether the animal stolen was a horse or not. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and sentenced the defendant to five years’ imprisonment in the penitentiary. The witnesses all swore that the animal was a horse, but that he had been gelded. It was assigned for error, that the court refused an instruction asked by the defendant; but no such instruction was in the record. There was a motion for a new trial overruled, and that was assigned for error.

*W. J. Barden,*for plaintiff in error.

—A gelding is not a horse. (Penal Code, Art. 765; Wharton’s Criminal Law, 136, 224; 4 Ohio, 350; Banks v. The State, 28 Tex., 644.)

*B. B. Turner, Attorney General,*for the state.

—The only point in this ease; whether under our statute an indictment for theft of a horse can sustain a verdict and judgment where the proof shows that the animal stolen was a gelding, as in this case. (Paschal’s Dig., Art. 2404.)

This statute names both, and thereby seems to recognize a distinction, whether wisely or not, is not the inquiry»

My examination has resulted in finding cases sustaining *572the view of the appellant. (Hooker v. The State, 4 Ohio, 348.) The ease is submitted upon the transcript.

Lindsay, J.

—The appellant in this case was indicted for stealing a horse. The proof showed that the property taken was a gelding, an animal- which may be, like all eunuchs, of no sex. The Criminal Code provides that where words in the masculine gender are used in the penal statutes of the State, they shall include the feminine also. This case does not come within the category of that general, provision, for a gelding is neither the one nor the other. The term is used in the statute upon which this indictment was founded distinctively from the word horse, and a conviction for the theft of a horse, upon the proof of taking feloniously a gelding, would be as incongruous as that of stealing a mule or an ass upon a similar indictment.

If the theft of a specific domestic animal was committed, it should have been correctly charged in the indictment. For the error of the court in refusing a new trial the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-6088
JOSEPH MICHAEL BURNS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge. (CA-93-283-N) Submitted: September 26, 1995 Decided: January 11, 1996 Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Michael Burns, Appellant Pro Se. Linwood Theodore Wells, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's orders denyingrelief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition and denying reconsideration thereof. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions adopting in material part the magistrate judge's recommendation and denying reconsideration and find no reversibleerror. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Burns v. Angelone , No. CA-93-283-N (E.D. Va. Oct. 21 & Dec. 22, 1994). 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
#### Joseph Tupper, as President and on Behalf of Syracuse Property Owners Association, et al., Appellants, v City of Syracuse et al., Respondents.

[945 NYS2d 587]

Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. Present — Scudder, P.J., Centra, Peradotto, Lindley and Martoche, JJ.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2592 

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to require the Federal Communications Commission to publish on the website of the Commission documents to be voted on by the Commission. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 1, 2015 

Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois (for himself and Mr. ALLEN) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to require the 

Federal Communications Commission to publish on the 

website of the Commission documents to be voted on 

by the Commission. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PUBLICATION OF DOCUMENTS IN ADVANCE OF 

4 FCC VOTING. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 4 of the Communications 

6 Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 154) is amended by adding at 

7 the end the following: 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2592 IH

1 ‘‘(p)(1) The Commission may not adopt any order, 

2 decision, report, or action by vote of the Commission, un3 less the Chairman causes the Commission to publish on 

4 the Internet website of the Commission the text of such 

5 order, decision, report, or action— 

6 ‘‘(A) not later than 24 hours after the time 

7 such text is placed on circulation for review by the 

8 Commissioners; or 

9 ‘‘(B) not later than 21 days before the date on 

10 which the vote is to occur. 

11 ‘‘(2) The text published pursuant to paragraph (1) 

12 shall be the text intended at the time of the publishing 

13 to be subject to a vote. Nothing in this subsection may 

14 be construed to prevent the Commission from making 

15 changes to the text after the publishing. 

16 ‘‘(3) This subsection shall not apply to a portion of 

17 any order, decision, report, or action if the publishing of 

18 such portion is likely to lead to a result described in a 

19 paragraph of section 552b(c) of title 5, United States 

20 Code.’’. 

21 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

22 this section shall apply with respect to an order, decision, 

23 report, or action the text of which is placed on circulation 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2592 IH

1 after the date that is 90 days after the date of the enact2 ment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# C_2021054EN.01000101.xml

| 16.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10084 — ACP/Marubeni/Toho Gas/GGND)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 54/01)

On 1 February 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10084. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10084. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Charles R. Waldron, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Learning Tree International, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 29, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of the operations of Learning Tree International, Inc.



|                         |  |  |  |     |  |                        |  |                                           
|------------------------ |  |  |  | --- |  | ---------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------
|                         |  |  | 
|Date: September 24, 2007 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ CHARLES R. WALDRON
|                         |  |  |  |     |  | Name: Title:           |  | Charles R. Waldron Chief Financial
Officer

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.
# C_2021384EN.01000301.xml

| 22.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 384/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 384/3

---

Special report 22/2021

Sustainable finance: More consistent EU action needed to redirect finance towards sustainable investment

(2021/C 384/03)

The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that special report 22/2021 ‘Sustainable finance: More consistent EU action needed to redirect finance towards sustainable investment’ has just been published.

The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://eca.europa.eu.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2511 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2511

  To condition the eligiblity of disabled children aged 16 or 17 for 
      supplemental security income benefits on school attendance.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 21, 2015

Mr. Reed (for himself and Mr. Boustany) introduced the following bill; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To condition the eligiblity of disabled children aged 16 or 17 for 
      supplemental security income benefits on school attendance.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``School Attendance Improves Lives Act 
of 2015''.

SEC. 2. SSI BENEFITS FOR DISABLED CHILDREN AGED 16 OR 17 CONDITIONED ON 
              SCHOOL ATTENDANCE.

    (a) In General.--Section 1614(a)(3)(C) of the Social Security Act 
(42 U.S.C. 1382c(a)(3)(C)) is amended by adding at the end the 
following:
    ``(iii) Notwithstanding clause (i) of this subparagraph, an 
individual who has attained 16 years of age but not 18 years of age 
shall not be considered an eligible individual for a month for purposes 
of this title unless the individual is a full-time elementary or 
secondary school student (within the meaning of section 202(d)(7) and 
the regulations promulgated under such section), except where the 
Commissioner determines that the individual has good medical cause, 
corroborated by a treating physician, to not attend school for part or 
all of the month.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to benefits payable for calendar months beginning after the 6-
month period that begins with the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 99.3





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2003



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Secure
Computing Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Timothy J. Steinkopf, Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003, 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/    TIMOTHY J. STEINKOPF                                                        
|                                                                                   
|Timothy J. Steinkopf Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer May 15, 2003
1)ISMISS; OpillOll hied January 23, 2013.



### In The (!Inurt øf ijcaki 

## .Fift!i Dntrirt rf xai at Ja1tai No. 05-12-01 172-CV 

### IZZY ASUKENAZY AND JONAThAN AGUS, Appellants WELLS FARGO, N.A., Appellee On Appeal fromthe 14th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC—12-04619 

### OPINION Before Justices FitzGerald, Fillmore and Evans Opinion by Justice Evans Before the Court is appellants’ January 16, 2013 unopposed motion to dismiss appeal. We grant appellants’ motion and dismiss the appeal. See

JUSTICE

121 172F.P05

## (itutri Lii 

## Apri15 3FiftIi Jit1rir1 tit Lixt tt 

## Jt11ai JUDGMENT Izzy Ashkenazy andJonathan Agus, Appellants No. 05-12-01 172-CV V. Wells Fargo, N.A., Appellee On Appeal from the 14th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial CourtCauseNo. DC-12-04619. Opinion deliveredby Justice Evans. Justices FitzGerald and Fillmore participating. In accordancewith this Court’s opinion ofthis date, this appeal is DISMiSSED. Subjectto 

### any agreement oftheparties, it is ORDERED that appellee Wells Fargo, N.A. recoverits costs ofthis appeal from appellants IzzyAshkenazy andJonathan Agus. Judgmententered this January 23, 2013.

W. EVANS JUSTiCE
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6426

JAMES C. MCFADDEN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STANLEY B. BURT, JR., Lieber Correctional Institution; CHARLES M. CONDON, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (CA-02-83-25BC) Submitted: May 29, 2003 Decided: June 4, 2003 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James C. McFadden, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: James C. McFadden seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken to this court from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a state court unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court on the merits absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). As to claims dismissed by a district court solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’” Rose v. Lee , 252 F. 3d 676, 684 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that McFadden has not made the requisite showing. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 123 S.Ct. 1029 (2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM (A) UNISON
HEALTHCARE CORPORATION'S UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE MONTHS
ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH (B)
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN IT'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           7,371
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   33,174
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,611
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                43,126
<PP&E>                                          37,013
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,684
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 224,126
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           60,454
<BONDS>                                        126,866
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             5
<OTHER-SE>                                       9,090
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   224,126
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                55,735
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   50,256
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,622
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   261
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,658
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,062)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,980)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,082)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,082)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.66)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.66)
        

</TABLE>