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

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000             DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-2000             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000             SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         231,419                 231,419
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,008                   3,008
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,530                   1,530
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               240,523                 240,523
<PP&E>                                          21,837                  21,837
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (8,329)                 (8,329)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 275,966                 275,966
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,763                  13,763
<BONDS>                                          1,921                   1,921
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                           259                     259
<OTHER-SE>                                     258,629                 258,629
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   275,966                 275,966
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,269                  16,811
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   16,686                  43,711
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (3,447)                 (9,048)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,970)                (17,852)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                     160
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,970)                (18,012)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,970)                (18,012)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.31)                  (0.72)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.31)                  (0.72)


</TABLE>
(78 Hun, 287.)

#### STANTON v. HENNESSY.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.

May 14, 1894.)

Concurring opinion. For majority opinion, see 28 N. Y. Supp. 855.

BROWN, P. J.

I concur in a reversal of this judgment; but I am of the opinion that the judgment roll in the action between plaintiff and defendant’s father was admissible in evidence to show that plaintiff had been subjected to the expense of an action in attempting to enforce the contract against defendant’s father. White v. Madison, 20 N. Y. 120, 129. The costs of that suit and the expense of counsel, etc., were elements of the plaintiff’s loss. That judgment, however, was entered upon a verdict of the jury, and it was plainly incompetent for plaintiff to attempt to give the reason for the verdict. Without his evidence on that subject, the case was destitute of any proof that defendant had made any false representations, and the complaint should! have been dismissed.
1 The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 02-3816

___________ Samuel E. Massa, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Eastern * District of Missouri. Joel B. Eisenstein; David M. * Morgan; James Willie Edwards; * [UNPUBLISHED] David Wiess; Sue Crowder; Gary * Davis; Kenneth Romines, Judge; * St. Louis County; Franklin County; * Lawrence Davis, Judge, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: February 7, 2003 Filed: March 4, 2003

___________ Before McMILLIAN, MELLOY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. After allowing Samuel Massa to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), the district court 1 dismissed his complaint, prior to service, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The court reasoned that the complaint was frivolous because of its similarity to-2- Massa’s previous IFP complaint that had been dismissed as frivolous, see Waller v. Groose , 38 F.3d 1007, 1008 (8th Cir. 1994) (per curiam); and that the claims, based on events that occurred more than ten years earlier, were barred by the five-year statute of limitations, see Chandler v. Presiding Judge, Callaway County , 838 F.2d 977, 978-79 (8th Cir. 1988). Massa appeals. Having carefully reviewed the record, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47A(a). A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

MISC. NO. 04-22

IN RE: RECALL OF RETIRED JUDGE

O R D E R

 Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7257(b)(1), eligible retired Judges of the Court may be recalled 

by the Chief Judge when further service is needed by the Court. Retired Judge Mary J. Schoelen,

having complied with 38 U.S.C. § 7257, is designated a recall-eligible retired Judge. The Chief 

Judge of the Court has determined that, if recalled, Judge Schoelen would provide substantial service 

necessary to meet the needs of the Court.

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is

ORDERED that, effective January 6, 2022, through December 31, 2022, recall-eligible

retired Judge Schoelen is recalled from retired status in accordance with 38 U.S.C. § 7257(b)(1).

Judge Schoelen shall have and exercise all the judicial powers and duties of the office of a Judge 

in active service and shall otherwise perform substantial service for the Court as requested by the 

Chief Judge. It is further 

ORDERED that Judge Schoelen shall serve in recalled status in calendar year 2022 to review

and decide appeals, motions, and other filings with the Court and to perform other substantial service

at the request of the Chief Judge and she shall so serve throughout the calendar year for up to 90 

days or its equivalent. With her consent, Judge Schoelen's service may be extended beyond 90 

days or its equivalent.

DATED: January 6, 2022 BY THE COURT: 

MARGARET BARTLEY 

Chief Judge
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Orlean Arturo VELASQUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-10926

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 17, 2011.

Nancy E. Larson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

John Steven Bush, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before DAVIS, SMITH and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Orlean Arturo Velasquez appeals the sentence imposed for conspiring to possess with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A) and 846. The district court sentenced him to 135 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release.

There was no error, plain or otherwise, in the district court’s application of the drug Guideline, U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, rather than the robbery Guideline, § 2B3.1, to calculate the guidelines range. *See*
      *274§ lB1.2(a); U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual app. A, pp. 556-57 (2009); *cf. United States v. Loe,*248 F.3d 449, 463 (5th Cir.2001).

Velasquez has failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness that we apply to his guidelines sentence and, therefore, has shown no error with respect to the substantive reasonableness of his sentence. *See United States v. Campos-Maldonado,*531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir.2008).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### Worley and Welsh *against*Scudder and Coryell.

In a, transitory action, if the venue is not laid in the county where the cause of action arose, or where tlio defendant resides, the court will on motion, and without affidavit of defence change the venue to the county where the defendant resides, if the plaintiff reside out of the State.

The plaintiffs in this case resided in Philadelphia, the defendants in Hunterdon county, and the venue was laid in Gloucester county.

*Saxton,*on behalf of the defendants,

moved to change the venue from Gloucester to Hunterdon county, and cited *Dauehy et al.*v. *Taylor,*4 *Hals.*96, and *liev. Laws*453, *sec.*4.

*Harrison,*for the plaintiffs,

objected that the affidavit on which the motion was founded, did not state that the defendants had any defence to the action, and that it was contrary to the English practice to change the venue upon the common affidavit, whore the action was brought upon a promissory note, and cited *Rice*v. *Vinall, Barnes’ notes,*483. *Watson*v. *Willis, ibid*485. *Maugir*v. *Hinds, ibid*487. *The Duke of Bedford*v. *Bray, ibid*491. Also the case of *Abrams and Rolfe*v. *Wood and others,*1 *South,*30.

*Saxton*replied that an affidavit of merits was unnecessary. That our statute had abolished the English practice with regard to venues.

*276Oh. Justice.

The doctrine of venue stands upon a different footing in this state from the English practice. In transitory actions, our statute regulates the place in which the venue should be laid, leaving the court the power to change it at their discretion to any of the designated places, which are “ the county in which the cause of action arose, or the plaintiff or defendant resides at the time of instituting the action, or if the defendant be not an inhabitant of the state, the county in which the process shall have been served upon him.” The plaintiff ought to lay his venue in one of these counties. In this case the venue is laid out of the prescribed bounds, and when this is shewn, we must bring it back within those bounds. If the defendants asked a favor, we might impose terms upon them and require an affidavit of merits ; but here they are asking only what the statute gives them. Let the venue be changed to the county of Hunterdon.

Ford, J. The statute is imperative that the venue shall be laid in one of four places, but here it is laid in neither.

Drake concurred.

Venue changed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Hector Moreno GARZA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-41002.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 13, 2011.

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, James Lee Turner, Assistant *366U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY and HAYNES, Circuit Judges, and RODRIGUEZ, District Judge.*

*

 District Judge of the Western District of Texas, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM: **

Having reviewed the record and the briefs and heard argument in this case, we conclude that the district court committed no reversible error in denying the safety-valve reduction of the Defendant’s sentence under U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2.

AFFIRMED. *See*5th Cir. R. 47.6.

**

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
|Grant Thornton LLPChartered AccountantsManagement Consultants | Grant Thornton LLP
|------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------



To the Board of Directors of
Millennium Capital Venture Holdings, Inc. 
c/o W. Scott Lawler, Esq. - Legal Counsel
1530 - 9 Avenue SE
Calgary, Alberta
T2G OT7

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS

Grant Thornton LLP, independent chartered accountants, do hereby consent to the use of our report dated March 24, 2003, relating to the independent auditors' report and audited financial statements of Millennium Capital Venture Holdings Inc. as of December 31, 2002 and for the calendar year then ended as appears in Millennium Capital Venture Holdings Inc.'s 10KSB Annual Report to be filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Dated: January 9, 2004

/s/ Grant Thornton LLP

Grant Thornton LLP
Chartered Accountants

Suite 1000

Canadian Member of Grant Thornton International
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2662 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2662

  To amend title 37, United States Code, to clarify the situations in 
which the United States will cover the cost of transportation for next 
of kin to attend the transfer ceremony of a member of the Armed Forces 
                           who dies overseas.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 4, 2015

 Mr. Franks of Arizona (for himself, Mr. Salmon, Mr. Gallego, and Ms. 
   Sinema) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 37, United States Code, to clarify the situations in 
which the United States will cover the cost of transportation for next 
of kin to attend the transfer ceremony of a member of the Armed Forces 
                           who dies overseas.

    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 ``Fallen Heroes Family Assistance 
Act''.

SEC. 2. GUARANTEED TRANSPORTATION FOR NEXT OF KIN TO ATTEND TRANSFER 
              CEREMONY OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES WHO DIE OVERSEAS.

    Section 481f(e) of title 37, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by redesignating paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) as 
        paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), respectively; and
            (2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new 
        paragraph (2):
    ``(2) The discretion to authorize transportation under paragraph 
(1) shall not apply, and the Secretary of the military department 
concerned is instead required to provide such transportation, whenever 
the death of the member overseas occurs in the line of duty in a combat 
or humanitarian relief operation or in combat zone designated by the 
Secretary of Defense.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 13.2

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 Annual Report on Form 20-F of ViryaNet Ltd. (the Registrant) for the year ended
December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 29, 2008 (the Report), the undersigned, Samuel Hacohen, Executive Chairman of the registrant, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of our 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 Registrant.
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|    |  |                   
|--- |  | ------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Samuel Hacohen
|    |  | Samuel Hacohen    
|    |  | Executive Chairman
|    |  | September 29, 2008

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.
Consents of Experts

                         CONSENT  OF  INDEPENDENT  AUDITORS


VAN  BUREN  &  HAUKE,  LLC,  CPA'S
63  Wall  Street
New  York,  NY  10005
212-344-3600  (Telephone)
212-344-3834  (Facsimile)

We   hereby   consent   to  the   incorporation   in  this   Form   10-KSB   of,
Carsunlimited.Com,  Inc.  of our  report  dated  May  8,  2001,  related  to the
financial  statements  of the Company for the period from  inception on March 7,
2000 to December 31, 2000.

August 19, 2003
/s/  Van  Buren  &  Hauke,  LLC
Certified  Public Accountant's
```

                                                                    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 of Chinawe.com Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Man Keung Wai,
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:

     (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/ Man Keung Wai
Chief Executive Officer
May 22, 2006

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Chinawe.com Inc. and will be
retained by Chinawe.com Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
```
Exhibit 13.1





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 Annual Report of Ceragon Networks Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned hereby certify pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that to the best of our knowledge:





1.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





2.
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




By: /s/ Ira Palti





Name: Ira Palti


Title: President and Chief Executive Officer




By:/s/ Tsipi Kagan





Name: Tsipi Kagan


Title: Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer




Date: March 31, 2011




A signed copy of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Ceragon Networks Ltd. and will be retained by Ceragon Networks Ltd. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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  Annual  report  of  Global  Realty   Development
Corporation  (the  "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending  December 31,
2005 as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Robert Kohn, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 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.



Date:  May 12, 2006                                    By: /s/ Robert Kohn
                                                       ----------------
                                                       Robert Kohn
                                                       Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>

Exhibit 11.1



                                LOGILITY, INC.
            Statement re: Computation of Per Share Earnings (Loss)
                   (In thousands, except per share amounts)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                        Three Months Ended                         Six Months Ended
                                                           October 31,                               October 31,
                                              ---------------------------------------    -------------------------------------
                                                    1999                  1998                1999                 1998
                                              ----------------      -----------------    ----------------    -----------------
<S>                                           <C>                   <C>                  <C>                 <C>
Common Stock:
  Weighted average common
     shares outstanding                                 13,331                 13,490              13,367               13,520

Dilutive effect of outstanding
     stock options *                                       130                      -                 167                    -
                                              ----------------      -----------------    ----------------    -----------------

              Total                                     13,461                 13,490              13,534               13,520
                                              ----------------      -----------------    ----------------    -----------------


Net income (loss)                                      $   959               $ (5,354)            $ 1,787            $  (8,773)
                                              ================      =================    ================    =================

Income (loss) per common share
              Basic                                    $  0.07               $  (0.40)            $  0.13            $   (0.65)
                                              ================      =================    ================    =================

              Diluted                                  $  0.07               $  (0.40)            $  0.13            $   (0.65)
                                              ================      =================    ================    =================
</TABLE>

* Stock options are not included in the three and six months ended October 31,
1998 calculations because they would have an anti-dilutive effect on the loss
per share.

                                       19