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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                     <C>                 <C>                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>              3-MOS               9-MOS                YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>       DEC-31-1998         DEC-31-1998          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>            SEP-30-1998         SEP-30-1998          DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                           0               1,517                7,247
<SECURITIES>                     0                   0                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                    0              16,986               30,255
<ALLOWANCES>                     0                   0                    0
<INVENTORY>                      0                   0                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 0              18,503               37,502
<PP&E>                           0                   0                    0
<DEPRECIATION>                   0                   0                    0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   0              18,503               37,502
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            0           1,359,585            1,350,060
<BONDS>                          0                   0                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>            0                   0                    0
<PREFERRED>                      0                   0                    0
<COMMON>                         0                   0                    0
<OTHER-SE>                       0          (1,341,082)          (1,312,558)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     0              18,503               37,502
<SALES>                          0                   0                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                13                  13                    0
<CGS>                            0                   0                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    0                   0                    0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>            13,209              40,376                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                 0                   0                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>               0                   0                    0
<INCOME-PRETAX>            (17,341)            (28,524)                   0
<INCOME-TAX>               (17,341)            (28,524)                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              0                   0                    0
<DISCONTINUED>                   0                   0                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                  0                   0                    0
<CHANGES>                        0                   0                    0
<NET-INCOME>               (17,341)            (28,524)                   0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                    0                   0                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                    0                   0                    0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2




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




In connection with the Quarterly Report of PLX Technology, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Arthur O. Whipple, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:
  1.
the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
  2.
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods indicated.
  This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, "filed" with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
  Date: November 4, 2010
  By: /s/ Arthur O. Whipple


Arthur O. Whipple
 Chief Financial Officer
  42
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



I, John M. Greeley, 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 Tarantella, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Tarantella, Inc.



By:

/s/ John M. GreeleyName:

John M. GreeleyTitle:

Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)August 16, 2004
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 20, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33057-33058]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15517]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER01-1635-000]


AIG Energy Trading Inc.; Notice of Issuance of Order

June 14, 2001.
    AIG Energy Trading Inc. (AIG) submitted for filing a rate schedule 
under which AIG will engage in wholesale electric power and energy 
transactions at market-based rates. AIG also requested waiver of 
various Commission regulations. In particular, AIG requested that the 
Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR part 34 of all future 
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by AIG.
    On May 24, 2001, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, 
Division of Corporate Applications, Office of Markets, Tariffs and 
Rates, granted requests for blanket approval under Part 34, subject to 
the following:
    Within thirty days of the date of the order, any person desiring to 
be heard or to protest the blanket approval of issuances of securities 
or assumptions of liability by AIG should file a motion to intervene or 
protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First 
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,

[[Page 33058]]

in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214).
    Absent a request to be heard in opposition within this period, AIG 
is authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities 
as a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any 
security of another person; provided that such issuance or assumption 
is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of the 
applicant, and compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably 
necessary or appropriate for such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that 
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by 
continued approval of AIG's issuances of securities or assumptions of 
liability.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to 
intervene or protests, as set forth above, is June 25, 2001.
    Copies of the full text of the Order are available from the 
Commission's Public Reference Branch, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426. The order may also be viewed on the Internet at
http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for 
assistance). Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed 
electronically via the internet in lieu of papeer. See, 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site 
at
http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-15517 Filed 6-19-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
MERCK & CIE, et al., petitioners, v. WATSON LABORATORIES, INC.

No. 16-493.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.

Justice ALITO took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Mary E. ROBINSON, petitioner, v. PURCELL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION.

No. 16-5404.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Edward PRINTUP, petitioner, v. PENNSYLVANIA.

No. 16-6710.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Middle District denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7665

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

STERLING VERNARD GREEN, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. 

(4:06-cr-01322-TLW-4; 4:11-cv-70078-TLW) 

Submitted: February 16, 2012 Decided: February 23, 2012

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Sterling Vernard Green, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker 

Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South 

Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Sterling Vernard Green seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 

(West Supp. 2011) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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). 

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 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 336-38 (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. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Green 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 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

Before the 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 

MEDHAT HEDA YET 

v. 

GAIN CAPITAL GROUP, LLC 

d/b/a FOREX.COM 

CFTC Docket No. 09-R044 

ORDER OF SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE 

Our review of the record and the parties' and amicus's appellate submissions establishes 

that the Administrative Law Judge committed no error material to the outcome of the 

proceedings in his Order of Dismissal. In making this determination, we have taken into 

consideration that respondent Gain has contended on appeal that the transactions in this case 

were governed specifically by one of the two provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act 

dealing with off-exchange retail foreign currency transactions, section 2(c)(2)(C), and not by the 

other provision, section 2(c)(2)(B); and that the complainant, Medhat Hedayet, has not disputed 

this or argued that the choice of provisions would make a legal difference. Accordingly, 

pursuant to Section 14 of the Commodity Exchange Act and Commission Regulation 12.406(b), 

we summarily affirm the Order of Dismissal without opinion. 1 

IT IS SO ORDERED? 

1 Pursuant to Commission Regulation 12.406(b ), 17 C.F.R. § 406(b ), neither the initial decision nor the 

Commission's order of summary affirmance shall serve as a Commission precedent in other proceedings. 

2 Under Sections 6(c) and 14(e) ofthe Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 9 and 18(e)(2000), a party may 

appeal a reparation order of the Commission to the United States Court of Appeals for only the circuit in which a 

hearing was held; if no hearing was held, the appeal may be filed in any circuit in which the appellee is located. The 

Commission has ruled that telephonic hearings are "held" in Washington, D.C., although parties may speak from 

several different locations. Dubois v. Alar011, [2000-2002 Transfer Binder] Comm. Fut. L. Rep. (CCH) ~ 28,406 at 

51,027 n.17 (CFTC Oct. 26, 2000). The statute also states that such an appeal must be filed within 15 days after 
By the Commission (Chairman GENSLER and Commissioners CHILTON, O'MALIA and 

WETJEN). 

Melissa D. Jurgens 

Secretary of the Commission 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

Dated: January 3, 2014 

notice of the order and that any appeal is not effective unless, within 30 days of the date of the Commission order, 

the appealing pm1y files with the court a bond equal to double the amount of any reparation award.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

IN RE: ROBERT M. MATESIC, AN

INCAPACITATED PERSON

PETITION OF: NADA JORDAN AND

RICHARD S. MATESIC :

:

:

:

:

: No. 81 WM 2021

IN RE: ROBERT M. MATESIC, AN

INCAPACITATED PERSON

PETITION OF: NADA JORDAN AND

RICHARD S. MATESIC :

:

:

:

:

: No. 82 WM 2021

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 13 th day of April , 2022, the Petition for Leave to File Petition for

Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is DENIED.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1529 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 1529

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                     November 16, 2010.
Whereas Bob Sheppard served as the public-address announcer for the New York 
        Yankees from opening day in 1951 through 2007;
Whereas Bob Sheppard served as the public-address announcer for the New York 
        Giants from 1956 through 2005;
Whereas Bob Sheppard announced at 62 World Series games, 2 All-Star Games, and 
        introduced more than 72 Hall of Famers throughout his career, with his 
        often-heard, booming voice eventually earning him the nickname ``The 
        Voice of God'';
Whereas Bob Sheppard utilized his great oratory skills not only in the sports 
        arena, but as the chairman of the speech department at John Adams High 
        School in Queens, New York, and as an adjunct professor of speech at St. 
        John's University;
Whereas Bob Sheppard was honored for his 50 memorable years of service as the 
        announcer at Yankee Stadium with ``Bob Sheppard Day'', celebrated on May 
        7, 2000, and with a permanent plaque in Monument Park behind Yankee 
        Stadium in the Bronx;
Whereas Bob Sheppard's clear, distinctive voice has set the standard of sports 
        announcing, and has become ingrained in the fans and players as a widely 
        recognized and revered Yankees tradition;
Whereas Bob Sheppard's voice will continue to live on as the recorded 
        introduction of Yankees' shortstop Derek Jeter;
Whereas Bob Sheppard lived for 70 years in Baldwin, New York, and spent 4 years 
        playing in semi-professional football leagues on Long Island, including 
        the Valley Stream Red Raiders and the Hempstead Monitors; and
Whereas Bob Sheppard died on July 11, 2010, at his home in Baldwin, New York, at 
        age 99: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) recognizes the legacy of Bob Sheppard and his distinctive 
        announcements as a revered tradition not only to the New York Yankees 
        and the New York Giants, but also to the games of baseball and football 
        and the field of sports announcing; and
            (2) commends Bob Sheppard for his 52 years of service as a public-
        address announcer and his long tenure as a speech professor.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Reymond Edward GILL, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6601.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 12, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
---

Exhibit 32.2

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as Adopted
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarter Report of Mantra Venture Group
Ltd. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended November 30, 2007, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, David Warren, Chief Financial Officer of the Company certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|1 | The Report fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
  and                                   
|- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  |                                                                                                                                                                 
|2 | The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.

By: /s/ David Warren

David Warren 
  Chief Financial Officer 
  April 21, 2008

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 19-0715

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

WOLFGANG ALEXANDER LUCAS VASQUEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including July 22, 2020, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 15 2020

06/15/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0715
Arnoldo Antonio GARCIA, petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General.

No. 16-6721.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lucas SANCHEZ-AGUAYO, a.k.a. Joe Tampia, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-13449

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

April 30, 2012.

Judy K. Hunt, Donald L. Hansen, Robert E. O’Neill, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Lucas Sanchez-Aguayo, Cl Eden-Inmate Legal Mail, Eden, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

*830Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Howard C. Anderson, appointed counsel for Lucas Sanchez-Aguayo in this direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Sanchez-Aguayo’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                        5
<CIK>                            0000863832   
<NAME>                           GEODYNE INST/PENSION ENERGY INCOME LTD PSHP P-5
                                  
<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                   JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                     SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                203,806
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                          77,073
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      280,879
<PP&E>                              9,835,071
<DEPRECIATION>                      8,752,932
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      1,363,018
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       0
<BONDS>                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                          1,363,018
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        1,363,018
<SALES>                               619,716
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                      968,834
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         292,581
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       676,253
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   676,253
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                          676,253
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            5.36
<EPS-DILUTED>                               0
        
 

</TABLE>
# C_2011160EN.01000702.xml

| 28.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 160/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 160/7

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 April 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van koophandel te Brussel — Belgium) — Francesco Guarnieri & Cie v Vandevelde Eddy VOF

(Case C-291/09) (1)

1

(Free movement of goods - Article 34 TFEU - Cautio judicatum solvi - Company governed by Monegasque law - First paragraph of Article 18 TFEU)

2011/C 160/04

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Rechtbank van koophandel te Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Francesco Guarnieri & Cie

Applicant:

Defendant: Vandevelde Eddy VOF

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank van Koophandel te Brussel — Interpretation of Articles 28 EC, 29 EC and 30 EC — Whether security for costs and damages (cautio judicatum solvi) is an infringement of Community rules in relation to the free movement of goods

cautio judicatum solvi

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 34 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding the legislation of a Member State from requiring the provision of security pending judgment, by a claimant of Monegasque nationality which has brought proceedings before one of the civil courts of that State against a national of that State in order to obtain payment of invoices relating to the delivery of goods assimilated to Community goods, although such a requirement is not imposed on nationals of that Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.

1

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA

No. 224PA15

Filed 18 March 2016

IN THE MATTER OF THE FORECLOSURE OF THE DEEDS OF TRUST 

EXECUTED BY GROVER C. BROWN and wife, MARGARET C. BROWN, dated 

April 1, 1980, Recorded in Book 949 at Page 109, and Book 949 at Page 111 of the

Buncombe County Registry

On discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 of a unanimous decision 

of the Court of Appeals, ___ N.C. App. ___, 771 S.E.2d 829 (2015), affirming an order

entered on 9 April 2014 by Judge J. Thomas Davis in Superior Court, Buncombe

County. Heard in the Supreme Court on 16 February 2016.

Bull and Reinhardt, PLLC, by Adam W. Bull, for petitioner-appellee, Executor 

of the Estate of Merton L. Brown.

Wilder Wadford and Christopher Musial for respondent-appellants.

John R. Dillard for First Choice Title, LLC, d/b/a First Choice Title Company 

of North Carolina, amicus curiae.

PER CURIAM.

DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IMPROVIDENTLY ALLOWED.