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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                      23,530,000
<SECURITIES>                                50,412,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               15,237,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            96,763,000
<PP&E>                                      27,628,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             141,857,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       57,877,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               141,857,000
<SALES>                                     91,672,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            91,672,000
<CGS>                                       39,300,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               39,300,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              8,206,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,790,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          5,416,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 5,416,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.25
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 570 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 570

          To make certain regulations have no force or effect.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 15, 2009

 Ms. DeGette (for herself, Mr. Abercrombie, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Boucher, 
   Mrs. Capps, Mr. Connolly of Virginia, Mr. Farr, Mr. Grijalva, Ms. 
Harman, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Lee of California, Mr. Loebsack, 
     Mrs. Lowey, Mr. McDermott, Mr. Moore of Kansas, Mr. Murphy of 
  Connecticut, Mr. Nadler of New York, Mr. Rothman of New Jersey, Ms. 
 Schakowsky, Ms. Slaughter, Mr. Stark, Mr. Waxman, Mr. Welch, and Ms. 
   Woolsey) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
          To make certain regulations have no force or effect.

    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 ``Protecting Patients and Health Care 
Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. REGULATIONS ON CERTAIN FEDERAL HEALTH CARE STATUTES.

    The final regulations issued by the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services entitled ``Ensuring That Department of Health and Human 
Services Funds Do Not Support Coercive or Discriminatory Policies or 
Practices in Violation of Federal Law'', 73 Fed. Reg. 78072 (December 
19, 2008), shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Science Foundation

# AGENCY:

National Science Foundation.

# ACTION:

Notice of permit modification issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978, Public Law 95-541.

# SUMMARY:

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. This is the required notice.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nadene G. Kennedy, Permit Officer, Office of Polar Programs, Rm. 755, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    On February 17, 2000, notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     of a request for modification to permit 2000WM-01 (ASA) for waste management activities at all U.S. Antarctic Program facilities in Antarctica. The requested modification transfers responsibility for waste management activities from the incumbent support contractor, Antarctic Support Associates, to Raytheon Polar Services Company. The transfer modified the permit to change the permit holder from Antarctic Support Associates to Raytheon Polar Services Company, who is the sole holder of the permit. All special conditions of the original permit remain the same except for the change in name of the permit holder. All references to Antarctic Support Associates now apply to Raytheon Polar Services Company.                

Nadene G. Kennedy,

Permit Officer.

[FR Doc. 00-9881 Filed 4-19-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
Exhibit 32.3



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 Secure Computing Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004 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 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/ Timothy J. Steinkopf                                                             
|                                                                                     
|Timothy J. Steinkopf Senior Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer April 30, 2004
**Exhibit  13.1**

**HOLMES FINANCING (NO.5) PLC****04258785**

**ABBEY NATIONAL HOUSE   2 TRITON SQUARE, REGENTS PLACE****LONDON NW1 3AN**

**Certification****Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002****(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title  18, United States Code)**

      Pursuant      to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b)      of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned      officer of the servicer does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge,      that: 

      The      Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the “Form20-F”) of Holmes Financing (No. 5) PLC (the “Company”)fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents,in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofthe Company. 

| Dated:  |   | June 30,      2005 |   |   |   | /s/ Chris Fielding |
|--------------|--------|--------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------------------|
|         |   |               |   |   |   | Chris Fielding     |

     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. 

----
EXHIBIT 23.1

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration  Statements on Form
S-8 (No.  333-119097) of China Energy Savings Technology,  Inc. and subsidiaries
of our report,  dated  December 27, 2004 appearing in this Annual Report on Form
10-KSB/A amendment #2 of China Energy Savings Technology,  Inc. and subsidiaries
for the year ended September 30, 2004.


/s/ Moore Stephens Wurth Frazer and Torbet, LLP
-----------------------------------------------
Moore Stephens Wurth Frazer and Torbet, LLP
Walnut, California
June 24, 2005
#### Leslie Muhlhahn, Respondent, v Triple Cee Bar and Restaurant Supply Company, Appellant.

Yesawich, Jr., J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Swartwood, J.), entered May 23, 1986 in Tompkins County, upon a verdict rendered in favor of plaintiff.

Plaintiff instituted suit by service of a summons with notice alleging “personal injury as a result of defective product”. She claimed to have suffered a second degree chemical burn to her leg while using a cleansing and degreasing agent said to have been distributed by defendant. When defendant failed to serve a timely response, a default was taken and an inquest to assess the amount of plaintiff’s damages was held; a jury returned a verdict of $2,700.

*997Prior to the inquest, defendant challenged the adequacy of plaintiffs affidavit on the ground that it did not prove a prima facie cause of action as required by CPLR 3215 (e). Supreme Court found the affidavit sufficient to sustain a default judgment, and on that issue defendant brings this appeal.

CPLR 3215 (e) provides in relevant part that: "On any application for judgment by default, the applicant shall file proof of service of the summons and complaint, or a summons and notice * * * and proof by affidavit made by the party of the facts constituting the claim, the default and the amount due. Where a verified complaint has been served it may be used as the affidavit of the facts constituting the claim and the amount due”. Defendant maintains that the affidavit constitutes insufficient "proof’ because it implicates defendant — as being the supplier of the cleansing agent — through hearsay and conclusory statements, not through plaintiff’s personal knowledge. But this overstates the level of proof required to support a default judgment. A defendant upon default is deemed to have admitted all traversable allegations, including the basic allegation of liability but may contest a plaintiff’s conclusions as to damages *(Rokina Opt. Co. v Camera King,*63 NY2d 728, 730). The affidavit need only allege enough to enable the court to. determine that jurisdiction lies and that there is a cause of action upon which relief may be granted *(see, 4*Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac ¶¶ 3215.25, 3215.27). As the language of CPLR 3215 (e) itself indicates, the level of proof required to uphold a complaint is all that is contemplated. Here, though somewhat inartful, the affidavit states a strict products liability cause of action.

In addition, given that defendant in its unsuccessful application to open the default in fact admitted being the proper defendant, we are unpersuaded by its contention that, at the time of default, it was not apprised of the allegations it is now deemed to have admitted because the action was commenced by a mere summons with notice and no complaint was ever served.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Mahoney, P. J., Main, Yesawich, Jr., Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.2I, Christopher Dunn, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of Covad Communications Group, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal controls over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly reportis being prepared; (b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internalcontrol over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to providereasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparationof financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally acceptedaccounting principles; (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.      **COVAD COMMUNICATIONS GROUP, INC.**
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 19

- 00282

- CR

Carlos GARCIA

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 7, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 548885 Honorable Michael De Leon, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION

, JUSTICE RIOS , AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. The trial court clerk is ORDERED not to assess any court

- appointed attorney’s fees against appellant, and the clerk of this court is DIRECTED to provide a copy of this court’s opinion and judgment to the trial court clerk. Appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED

SIGNED December 4, 2019.

_____________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
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 Paladyne Corp. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ending November 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Terrence J.
Leifheit President and Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 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/ Terrence J. Leifheit
------------------------
Terrence J. Leifheit
President and Chief Executive Officer
January 21, 2003
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Keith ROSS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-7463.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 29, 2011.

Decided: May 12, 2011.

Robert Keith Ross, Appellant Pro Se. Jill Westmoreland Rose, Office of the United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before KEENAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Robert Keith Ross seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ross has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Ross’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.*
#### KOHBERGER, Appellant, v. COUGHLIN et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 6, 1896.)

Action by Catharine Kohberger against Catharine Coughlin and John F. Coughlin.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.
EXHIBIT 99.3


                            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-QSB of ImproveNet,  Inc., a
Delaware  corporation (the "Company"),  for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2003, as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report") I, Jeffrey I. Rassas,  Co-Chairman and Chief Executive 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 (15 U.S.C. Section 78m(a)
          or 78o(d)): and

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

ImproveNet, Inc.

/s/ Kenneth S. Cragun
--------------------------
Kenneth S. Cragun
Chief Financial Officer

Dated: May 20, 2003
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6653

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DONNIE J. AUSTIN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District

Judge. (CR-02-124; CA-04-522)

Submitted: September 16, 2005 Decided: September 29, 2005

Before LUTTIG, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donnie J. Austin, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Wiley Miller, Peter

Sinclair Duffey, 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:

Donnie J. Austin seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000). The order is not appealable 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

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Austin has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. 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
**MEMORANDUM**

From:	[TRIAL COUNSEL]				   		      Reply to 

									    Attn of:

To:	File 

Subj:	SUPPLEMENT TO REPORT OF RESULTS OF TRIAL FOR MISDEMEANOR CRIME OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN CASE OF U.S. v. DOE

1. As required by reference (a), this memorandum supplements the report of results of trial  in the special court-martial trial of U.S. v. Doe. In that case, the following specifications qualify as misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence under reference (b):

a. Charge I, Specification 1 is a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence because it has as an element (the use of physical force) (the attempted use of physical force) (the threatened use of a deadly weapon), specifically (describe element). The accused (is the current spouse of the victim)(is the former spouse of the victim)(is the parent of the victim)(is the guardian of the victim)(shares a child in common with the victim)(is cohabitating with or has cohabitated with the victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian).

b. Charge II, Specification 1.....

#

# image1.emf

# oleObject1.bin