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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           7,072
<SECURITIES>                                     8,223
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,324
<ALLOWANCES>                                       100
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                25,018
<PP&E>                                           1,741
<DEPRECIATION>                                     467
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  34,510
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,655
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        29,544
<OTHER-SE>                                          83
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    34,510
<SALES>                                         21,823
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                21,823
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,437
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,040
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  83
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,670
<INCOME-TAX>                                       676
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                994
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       994
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.11
        

</TABLE>
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 30101 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
JOSHUA FINLEY , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana USDC No. 3:17

- CR

- 29

- 1

Before JONES , DUNCAN, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Joshua Finley has
moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Finley h a s not filed a response. We h ave reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 4, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-30101 Document: 00514668409 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/04/2018No. 18

- 30101

2 appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is
GRANTE D, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the
APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 18-30101 Document: 00514668409 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/04/2018
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

I, T. Kendall Hunt, certify, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for VASCO Data Security International, Inc. for the quarter ended
March 31, 2010, that to the best of my 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 Registrant.
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                              
|--------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                              
|/s/ T. Kendall Hunt                                           
|T. Kendall Hunt                                               
|Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the
Board of Directors
|May 7, 2010
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6394 

To amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 to allow transport, 

purchase, sale, and export of pelts of Southcentral and Southeast Alaska 

northern sea otters that are taken for subsistence purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 29, 2010 

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 to 

allow transport, purchase, sale, and export of pelts of 

Southcentral and Southeast Alaska northern sea otters 

that are taken for subsistence purposes. 

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


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6394 IH

1 SECTION 1. TRANSPORT, PURCHASE, SALE, AND EXPORT 

2 OF PELTS OF SOUTHCENTRAL AND SOUTH3 EAST ALASKA NORTHERN SEA OTTERS 

4 TAKEN FOR SUBSISTENCE PURPOSES. 

5 Section 102 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act 

6 of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1372) is amended by adding at the 

7 end the following: 

8 ‘‘(g) Nothing in this Act prohibits the transport, pur9 chase, sale, export of, or any offer to purchase, sell, or 

10 export, any pelt of an otter from the Southcentral or 

11 Southeast Alaska stock of northern sea otters that is 

12 taken for subsistence purposes in accordance with section 

13 101(b)(1).’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
NO. 12-14-00067-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

MICHAEL KENNEDY, 

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 87TH

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

On March 19, 2014, Appellant Michael Kennedy filed a notice of appeal from the trial 

court’s dismissal of his civil rights action. However, the trial court clerk notified this court that 

no final judgment has been signed. Therefore, this court notified Appellant, pursuant to Texas 

Rule of Appellate Procedure 37.2, that the information received in this appeal does not contain a 

final judgment or other appealable order. Appellant was further informed that the appeal would 

be dismissed if the information received in the appeal was not amended on or before April 21, 

2014, to show the jurisdiction of this court. The deadline for amendment has passed, and 

Appellant has neither responded to the court’s March 19, 2014 notice or otherwise shown the

jurisdiction of this court. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See 

TEX. R. APP. P. 37.2, 42.3.

Opinion delivered April 23, 2014.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

APRIL 23, 2014

NO. 12-14-00067-CV

MICHAEL KENNEDY,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 87th District Court 

of Anderson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 87-11917)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same 

being considered, it is the opinion of this court that this court is without jurisdiction of the 

appeal, and that the appeal should be dismissed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this court that 

this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction; and that this decision 

be certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
Amendment No.2 to Amended and Restated Severance Agreement



 Exhibit 10(f) 
 AMENDMENT No. 2 
 TO 
 ACUITY BRANDS, INC 
 AMENDED AND RESTATED SEVERANCE AGREEMENT 
 THIS AMENDMENT made and entered into as of the
30th day of March, 2010, by and between ACUITY BRANDS,
INC. (the “Company”) and RICHARD K. REECE (“Executive”); 
 W I T N E S S E T H 
 WHEREAS, the Company and Executive entered into a Severance Agreement, dated as of April 21, 2006 (“Severance Agreement”),
providing for the payment of certain compensation and benefits to Executive if Executive’s employment is terminated under certain circumstances; and 
 WHEREAS, the parties now desire to amend the Severance Agreement in the manner hereinafter provided; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Severance Agreement is hereby amended, as follows: 
 1.

 Section 4.2 is hereby amended by deleting “150%” from clause (i) and substituting “65%” in lieu
thereof. 
 2. 
 This Amendment to the Severance Agreement shall be effective as of the date of this Amendment. Except as hereby modified, the Severance Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the day and year first above written. 
  

									
	EXECUTIVE	 		 	 COMPANY
  
 ACUITY BRANDS, INC.

				
	 /s/ Richard K. Reece
	 		 	By:	 	/s/ Vernon J. Nagel
	RICHARD K. REECE	 		 		 	 Vernon J. Nagel
 Chairman,
President and CEO
. 

I/ i 

< 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 
?i+et, it dght b8 tened aa a eagltull amset 

or the stmrte d Testa, anil pap fsr saw oat 

of t&4 spwliia approp’iat%en 2ide far tha 

ti5osl r65.F eIIaing katguat $1, s&4?? me 

urtio1a pIIlwmu%d Nay bu d%w?uma aet%r 

the ololek o? the iYsva3 year 11840.* 

Our oplllfon Ro, bC#Sd oorreotly deulder the 

qIlQIItfon propouna%u t&w, tn the U.&t, vr ovurw, 

M t&m opd.rio lwte IItst%d. 

xour preII%nt tnqtary avva nvh gmmnt the 

j,Iwntiaa3 Ipae6ti;m daoti Fn t&e olalalan, bat rpe84mt6 8 clWl33rent tsst altwafionq w&ah is nvf atmwerad thm, emopt z3olwB4 by 3.Ieerenoe. 

ash rssp6iIt to tmme 

whial, 86 you state, wdgbt be t 
Hon. GBOI ii. amppar+ - pa@ 3 

of the State", the ru&e ie that such supply or t$xture 

maybe prrakmso8 rtnE. 

for any pwr OS th3 b f"L 

d for Out of the appropriation 

~UIE for ,tich an appropa%otioo 

has been 1~43. Rlxtures, equipment nnLi. oup~lies whatsoover, tiwt do not p~tish wltb their use, but whiah nay 

bu cvntbnxous3y USC& aptor the year in which thbq ore 

,pumhesed, m-e not gorernfxi by tho ldentlal prinoiples 

appl&oable to those supplies which are consumed pith 

thed.I- use. Thus, maChh%s, f%XtWes, books, Jna the 

llko, are not conmmxl brine the year they are prrehaseci, but they last for r~ yews. Suoh Noaplt63 asset& of the St&o my thePOfore be purckaeed and pa-id 

for out of the approp~4.atl.on for any year or the Menn%um for whf.c+b ZLII appropriation fbr such artiole bar, 

beex! made: This is true regurdiess of the year 4.21 

whioh the delirory is E&C+, aime the wrchase during 

the proper yaQr QNmnallts to 6.n %xpcnuitllr% or 5olmuLtnnmt of tho appropriation Per that yeti. 

In construiq the A propriatiw 2I111, as in 

construing any other legielat P YC sot, the intent of 

thQ LegislQture e;ovurns. When the tegimlaturo has 

Qui&oris~ the puroaee of t3gixLpl3nt OF euppUes, 

which 81% not ooneu%able by use during the year f'or 

whioh they arc autharisad to be pumhneed, &tie obv&lwi that tha ix&eat is net to pmide i0r th6 OpeFatlng eqmm3 Qf the depsrtment Per the year duriTg rhteh 

t&3 appropriation is atailibbla for 0s 

the aorltrary, to yrodcfe for WI adat p""a 

ture, but, on 

on to al% p&mnanent ope~otLq, fccilitle,s of the department or institut&on. Binoe the ronson for the rule amNtunCod Kl.th 

respeot to the ty:a of expend%ture imlred in Q-8380 

cloee act %x&it with rcfferan0~ tQ tbfe type Ot eZj@nditure, the rule, of course, doas not apply. 

xlt Ealst be llvrno in l!zszWl, that whore thare 

hat3 been :A sp3vlfitc: appropriaticti for an itca: for one 

year only, such expan2iture rrrurit be WI&? Urlrq that 

year, and cannot be u&e sfring the nest ye;rr. TO iIiud,rota, suppoao there is an apprOprTatf@n to a dopE&rtElant Ear QIlltarsQrfixtu.re sor tmflsca1yoar 

OIXX$.I% Augst 31, 1940, but no c0r1~spcmding aPlaO@Qtion for tho yser' X94%.. Clearly, the enrpendtturc would 

have to be made during the year X940, even thou& the 

BolLvery should be pQetpOned until s&81, and the wnt 

would be m&da froui the opp*a&.ation for iW0, srzab ~3 

apyropr1ation in tne nature of the eitustion 1s fW a
EXHIBIT 32.1



                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, David Calkins,  the Chief Executive  Officer of Pacel Corp. (the  "Company"),
certify,  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

1. the  Quarterly  Report  on Form  10-Q fo the  Company  for the  period  ended
September 30, 2003 (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. 78m 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.





November 12, 2003

BY: /s/David Calkins
   ----------------------
David Calkins, Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer (or equivalent thereof)
Filed 3/24/14

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

STEVEN VARGAS,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

CHERYL BALZ, as City Clerk, etc., et al.,

Defendants a nd Respondents;

CITY OF BREA et al.,

Real Parties in Interest and Respondents. G047591

(Super. Ct. No. 30

- 2012

- 00585496)

O RDER DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING AND GRANTING IN PART REQUESTS FOR MODIFICATION; NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT

Appellant’s request for modification is granted in part and denied in part. It
is ordered that the opinion filed herein on February 21, 2014, be modified as follows:

1. On page 2, in the first paragr aph of the Introduction section, beginning “The Brea City Clerk,” delete the first three sentences and replace them with the
following three new sentences:

The Brea City Clerk is responsible for transmitting to
the Orange County Registrar of Voters for pub lication
all arguments in favor of or in opposition to municipal2 initiatives. In this case, we hold the city clerk does not
have the authority to change an argument, or the
accompanying statutorily required form statement identifying the author of the arg ument, to effectuate what the city clerk believed was the author’s intent.

Under Elections Code section 9600, t he “ form

statement ” is a required part of a ballot measure

argument ; we also refer to the form statement as the
signature form in this opinion.

2

. On page 3, in the first paragraph of the Statement of Facts and Procedural History section, beginning “The Brea Accountability Act,” delete the last
sentence and replace it with the following new sentence:

After the Orange County Registrar of Voters
concluded both initiative petitions contained a
sufficient number of valid signatures, the Brea City
Council adopted resolution No. 2012

- 048, placing the
measures on the next municipal election ballot.

3. On page 12, the first paragraph, beginning “The fo rm for signatures ,” is
deleted and replaced with the following new paragraph :

The form statement for signatures of the author
or authors of arguments in favor of or in opposition to
ballot measures, which was used by the City of Brea

before the November 20 12 election, was defective.

The form did not include a space for the name of the
organization on behalf of which it was being

submitted , which is information required in an
appropriate case by Elections Code section 9283.3 These modifications do not effect a change in the judgment. To the extent
appellant has petitioned for rehearing, the petition for rehearing is DENIED.

FYBEL, J.

WE CONCUR:

O ’ LEARY, P. J.

RYLAARSDAM, J.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

April 1, 2013

p0325

Order 

April 1, 2013

146249

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 146249

COA: 311975

Muskegon CC: 11-061170-FC

GARY LEE OBRIEN

a/k/a GARY LEE O’BRIEN,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 5, 2012 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Opinion filed May 21, 20 09



### In The 

# Eleven th Court of Appeals

____________ 

### No. 1 1- 09 -0 01 33 -CV

____ ____ __ KEITH RUS SELL JUD D, Ap pellant

V. KA REN Y. CO REY -STE ELE, Ap pellee On App eal from the 244th Distric t Court

Ector C ounty, Texas Trial Court Cause No. C- 105,220
M E M O R

A N D UM O P I N I O N On April 30, 2009, the clerk of t his court wrote t he parties stating that it appear ed this court did not have jur i s d iction over this appea l and direc ting Ke ith Russ ell J udd to respond showing g rounds for c ontinuing the a ppeal. J udd has responded conte nding that he filed in the trial c ourt on Ap ri l 14 , 2 00 9, a

mot ion a sk ingthe t ri al cou rt

to v a c ate its 19 98 fa

mil y vio le nc e or de r, that hi s motion will be dee med denied a fter thirty day s, and that this appea l will be ef fe ct i v e o n May

14, 2009.2

J udd has fa iled to invoke the jurisdiction of this c ourt. The appea l is dismiss ed for want of jurisdiction. PER C URIAM May 21, 2009 Panel consists of: Wright, C.J ., M c C a l l , J. , an d

S tr an g e , J.
Slip Op. 99-86 UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE BEFORE: SENIOR JUDGE NICHOLAS TSOUCALAS

___________________________________ : TRANSCOM, INC., : : Plaintiff, : : L & S BEARING COMPANY, : : Plaintiff-Intervenor, : : v. : Court No. 97-01-00037 : UNITED STATES, : : Defendant, : : THE TIMKEN COMPANY, : : Defendant-Intervenor. : ___________________________________:

O R D E R In accordance with the decision (June 16, 1999) and mandate (Aug. 9, 1999) of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Appeal No. 98-1401, it is hereby

ORDERED that the judgment and order of this Court in Transcom, Inc. v. United States , 22 CIT __, 5 F. Supp. 2d 984 (1998), is vacated; and it is further

ORDERED that this case is remanded to the United States Department of Commerce, International Trade AdministrationCourt No. 97-01-00037 Page 2 (“Commerce”), to refund to Transcom, Inc. antidumping duty deposits made in excess of the 2.96% “all others” rate established in the initial investigation on tapered roller bearings (“TRBs”) that it obtained from unnamed exporters of TRBs from the People’s Republic of China during the fourth, fifth and sixth administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order.

______________________________ NICHOLAS TSOUCALAS SENIOR JUDGE

Dated: August 20, 1999 New York, New York
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.                  

###### Consumer Product Safety Commission

          - [CPSC Docket No. 01-C0006]

# AGENCY:

Consumer Product Safety Commission.

# ACTION:

Notice; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Consumer Product Safety Commission published a document in the                         **Federal Register**                         of April 9, 2001, concerning a provisionally accepted settlement agreement and order with Cosco, Inc. and Safety 1st, Inc. The Summary paragraph of the document contained incomplete information about the two civil penalties contained in the agreement.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ronald G. Yelenik or Patricia Kennedy, Trial Attorneys, Office of Compliance and Enforcement, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, DC 20207; telephone 301-504-0626.

## Correction

                        In the                         **Federal Register**                         issue of April 9, 2001, 66 FR 18450, in the Summary, add before the period of the final sentence the words “for Cosco and a civil penalty of $450,000 for Safety 1st.”                    

Dated: April 24, 2001.

Sadye E. Dunn,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-10691 Filed 4-27-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6355-01-M
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Annual Report of Lawrence Financial Holdings, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "report), I, RobRoy Walters,
Chief Financial 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 requirement 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 results of operations of the
Company.

                                 /s/ RobRoy Walters
                                 -----------------------
                                 Chief Financial Officer
                                     RobRoy Walters
                                     March 14, 2003