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

<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         000909298
<NAME>                        Mid Atlantic Realty Trust and Subsidiaries
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                            682
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   2,600
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    0
<PP&E>                                        319,470
<DEPRECIATION>                                 57,651
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                327,874
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               0
<BONDS>                                       159,299
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                          142
<OTHER-SE>                                    101,642
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  327,874
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               39,489
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  27,708
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                2,475
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             10,342
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 9,306
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             9,306
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                    9,306
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0.65
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.65





<FN>
Mid-Atlantic Realty Trust (MART) is in the specialized real estate industry for
which the current/noncurrent distinction is deemed in practice to have little
or no relevance.  Therefore, MART prepares unclassified balance sheets which
do not report current assets or current liabilities.

</FN>




</TABLE>
Harry BRANTLEY, petitioner, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections.

No. 18-8212

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Todd Eugene CANNADY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-7783.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 18, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Michael Allen Seaton v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-15-00722-CR

Trial court case number: 1448336

Trial court: 351st District Court of Harris County

The certification in this case is inconsistent with the record. According to the clerk’s 

record, appellant pleaded guilty to the offense of injury to a child, pursuant to an agreement with 

the State that the sentence be capped at 50 years. In accordance with the agreement, the trial court 

sentenced appellant to confinement for 50 years. A plea agreement that a sentence be “capped” 

constitutes a plea bargain. See Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); 

Shankle v. State, 119 S.W.3d 808, 813 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (stating that sentence-bargaining 

includes recommended “cap” on sentencing); Waters v. State, 124 S.W.3d 825, 826–27 (Tex. 

App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. ref’d) (stating that conviction based on agreement that caps 

punishment is subject to restrictions on appeal in Rule 25.2(a)(2)). The certification of appellant’s 

right to appeal indicates, however, that this is not a plea bargain case and that appellant has the 

right of appeal. 

A certification is “defective” if it is correct in form, but inaccurate when compared with 

the record. Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 614 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Unless a certification 

that is consistent with the record and that shows that the appellant has the right to appeal has been 

made part of the record, we must dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); Dears, 154 

S.W.3d at 613; Waters, 124 S.W.3d at 826–27 (holding that reviewing court lacked jurisdiction 

where defendant pled guilty with sentencing cap, even though trial court certified defendant had 

right of appeal). The rules provide that a certification may be amended to correct a defect or 

omission. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.1; Dears, 154 S.W.3d at 614–15. 

Accordingly, we direct the trial court to prepare and file an amended certification of 

appellant’s right to appeal that is consistent with the record and complies with Rule 25.2(d), 

including that the certification be signed by the defendant. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d). We further 

direct the trial court to order the district clerk to include the trial court’s certification in a 

supplemental clerk’s record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.5(c). The supplemental record shall be filed 

in this Court no later than 20 days from the date of this order.
It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: _/s/ Rebeca Huddle

  Acting individually 

Date: February 25, 2016
## In T he Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 23 - 00058 - CV BRITTON ELKINS , A

PPELLANT V. BEACON SALES ACQUISITION, INC. , APPELLEE On Appeal from the County Court at Law No . 1

Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No . 2021 - 007293 - 1 , Honorable Don Pierson , Presiding



### April 20 , 2023 ORDER OF ABAT

E MENT Before QUINN, C.J., and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ. Appellant , Britton Elkins, appeal s from the trial court’s Final Default Judgment . 1 On April 13, 2023 , Appellee, Beacon Sales Acquisition, Inc., filed a suggestion of bankruptcy , notifying the Court that Elkins filed a bankruptcy petition in the United States

1 Originally appealed to the Second Court of Appeals, this appeal was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 73.001.2

Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas on January 20 . See T EX . R. A PP . P . 8.1. The bankruptcy proceeding is styled In re Britton Gill Elkins , case number 23 - 30199 . Pursuant to Rule of Appellate Procedure 8.2, we abate the appeal and suspend all appellate deadlines , including A ppellant ’s current briefing deadline, until further order of this C ourt. The parties may file a motion to reinstate or sever the appeal if permitted by federal law or the bankruptcy court. See T EX . R. A PP . P . 8.3. The parties shall promptly inform this C ourt of the resolution of the bankru ptcy proceeding or any other event authorizing reinstatement of the appeal. It is so ordered. Per Curiam
No. 82-167 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1982 

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and A~pellant, 

vs . 

WILLIAM PRZYBYLOWICZ, 

Defendant and Respondent. 

Appeal from: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Ravalli 

Honorable James R. Wheelis, Judge presiding. 

Counsel of Record: 

For Appellant: 

Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana 

Robert B. Brown, County Attorney, Hamilton, Montana 

For Respondent: 

Smith, Connor and Van Valkenberg, Missoula, Montana 

Fred Van Valkenberg, Missoula, Montana 

Submitted on briefs: September 30, 1982 

Decided: December 9, 1982 
PER CURIAPI: 

On October 7, 1961, a jury convicted defendant, 

William Pryzbylowicz and his wife, Heidi, of criminal mischief and arson. Defendant, Bill Pryzbylowicz, orally moved 

at the November 27, 1981, sentencing hearing to have his 

verdicts set aside and the charges against himself dismissed 

for lack of sufficient evidence to support the verdicts. 

The court took defendant's motion under advisement and proceeded to sentence each defendant to eight years in prison 

and suspended the sentences. 

In order to be properiy before the District Court, 

defendant's motion should have been made pursuant to section 

46-16-702(2), MCA, motion for a new trial. That section requires that such a motion be in writing, be specific regarding the grounds therefor, be made within thirty days following the verdice and that reasonable notice of the motion be 

given the State. 

None of those requirements were met here. The motion 

to dismiss the charges and set aside teh verdicts against 

Bill Pryzbylowicz was made orally, fifty-seven days after 

entry of the verdicts. l\lo notice of the motion was given 

the State. Therefore, defendant's motion was not properly 

before the court, and the court should not have ruled on it. 

It is irrelevant that the State failed to complain of 

the procedural process employed by defendant prior to the 

State's appeal to this Court. The procedural error was such 

that the motion should never have been before the District 

Court. 

The January 26, 1982, order of the Fourth Judicial 

District Court is vacated. This case is remanded to that 
court for reinstatement of the jury verdict against 

defendant.
Exhibit 11

          InterCounty Bancshares, Inc. and Subsidiaries
      Computation of Consolidated Earnings Per Common Share
       For the Three Months Ended March 31, 2000 and 1999
        (in thousands, except shares and per share data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                         For the Three Months
                                           Ended March 31,
                                         -------------------
                                           2000          1999
<S>                                  <C>           <C>
Net income                           $    1,318    $    1,236
                                      =========     =========
Weighted average
  common shares issued                3,188,314     3,180,364

  Less-Unreleased common shares
    held by ESOP                         13,253        17,206
                                      ---------     ---------
  Weighted average number of
    shares outstanding used in
    the calculation of basic
    earnings per common share         3,175,061     3,163,158

  Add -Dilutive effect of stock
    options (1)                          37,076        80,446
                                      ---------     ---------
Adjusted weighted average number
of shares outstanding used in the
calculation of diluted earnings
per common share                      3,212,137     3,243,604
                                      =========     =========

Basic earnings per common share           $0.42         $0.39

Diluted earnings per common share          0.41          0.38

<FN>
(1)  There is presently no active public trading market for the
     Company's shares, nor are the prices at which common shares
     have been traded published by any national securities
     association or quotation service.  Fair value for earnings
     per common share purposes was assumed to be $23.00 at March
     31, 2000, and $27.00 at March 31, 1999.
</FN>
</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CFO 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 10-K of TheStreet.com, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Lisa A. Mogensen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my 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 Company.
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

/s/ Lisa A. MogensenLisa A. Mogensen
Chief Financial Officer
March 16, 2005




---
```

                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

                  1999 BROADWAY ASSOCIATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

                            FORM 10-QSB JUNE 30, 2004

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of 1999 Broadway Associates Limited
Partnership (the "Partnership"), on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date
indicated below, hereby certifies 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
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 Partnership.

Date: August 13, 2004                  /s/ Michael L. Ashner
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Michael L. Ashner
                                       Chief Executive Officer

Date: August 13, 2004                  /s/ Thomas Staples
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Thomas Staples
                                       Chief Financial Officer

                                    19 of 19
```
### No. 12889 IN

### THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

MONTANA BOARD OF 

### NATURAL RESOURCES et a1

# ., Plaintiffs and Appellants,

THE MONTANA POWER COMPANY, a Corporation, Defendants and Respondents.
Appeal from: District Court of the FirstJudicialDistrict, Honorable PeterMeloy, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants: Donald D. 

### MacIntyre argued, Helena, Montana For Respondents: Thomas Kelley argued, Billings, Montana William Coldiron argued, Butte, Montana John Carl appeared, Butte, Montana

Filed: 

### Submitted: November 12, 1974

i> ?- ,- 

### Decided:~,EL 5. ,. 

# '

"-3?4 I,.rEK CIJRIAM: On October 

### 23, 1974 plaintiffs, pursuant toRule 40, Elontana Rules of Appellate Civil Procedure, applied tothis Court seeking reinstatement of an injunctionwhich had been dissolvedby the district court of Lewis and Clark County, pending appeal and final decisi~n by this Court. The controversy here arose as follows: On .June 14, 1974 plaintiffs instituted this action, Civil Cause No. 37972 in the district court, by filinga complaint for declaratory judgmen~and injunction against defendant. Plaintiffs sought a ruling declaring defendant's proposed 

### 230 Lilovolt trans mission line from Billings to Great Falls, Montana, (the line), subject t~theMontana Utility SitingAct of 1973, sections 70- 801-70-823, R.C.M. 1947, and an order termporarily restraining defendant from constructing the line. District Judge Peter 

### G. yieloy issued the temporary restraining order and set a show cause hearing on the matter. On July 3, 1974 defendant answered the complaint statingthe 

### Tine was under construction prior to January 

### 1, 1973 and therefore
was specifically exempt from the Montana Utility SitingAct under section 70-811 of that Act. An evidentiary hcaring was held the same day. The parties were given additional 

### timeto filefurther briefs. On September 4, 1974 Judge Meloy found that the linewas within the exception provided by section 7Q-811, R.C.M. 1947, and d~mcluded that the temporary restraining order should be dissolved. jccordingly, judgment in favor of defendant and against pl-aintiffs das entered on September 26, 1974. On October 4, 1974 plaintiffs fileda notice of appeal and moved the district court under Rule 7(a), Montana Rules of Appellate Civil Procedure, to stay execution of thejudgment. This :[lotion was denied on October 7, 1974, whereupon plaintiffs made dpplication tothis Court. By an order dated October 24, 1974, this Court set the matter

### for adversary hearing on November 12, 

### 1974. Hearing was had, and after examining therecord and consideri.ngthe arguments of both parties, this Court finds, asdid the district court, 

### a total absence of facts in therecord to support plaintiffsr allegations that discontinuance of the injunctionwill

### result inirreparable injury

# . The relief sought is therefore DENIED.
Louis HILL, petitioner, v. Cynthia LINK, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Graterford, et al.

No. 18-7676.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 2019.

*1454Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third 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 Quarterly Report of Interland, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the period ending February 28, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, Allen L. Shulman, 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 to the best of my knowledge: 1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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. Date: April 4, 2005 /s/ Allen L. ShulmanAllen L. ShulmanSenior Vice President, Chief Financial
Officer, and Executive Counsel
Robert McLAMB, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-9341.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10
- 16
- 00168
- CV
IN THE INTEREST OF K .L.T. AND T.K.T., CH ILDREN

From the 66th District Court Hill County, Texas Trial Court No. 50574

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Jeremy Kyle Timmons appeals the “final decision of the parent modification” of K.L.T. and T.K.T. By letter dated May 26, 2016, the Clerk of the Court notified Timmons that he must complete the docketing statement and return it to us within twenty

- one days

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 32. By letter dated June 24, 2016, the Clerk of the Court notified Timmons that the docketing statement had not been received and that the docketing statement must be filed within twenty

- one days from the date of the letter. In the same letter, the Clerk warned Timmons that the appeal would be dismissed unless the docketing statement was filed within the time period specified. See id. 42.3(b), (c). More than twenty

- one days have passed, and we have not received the docketing

stat ement from Timmons. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. See id.In the Interest of K.L.T. and T.K.T. Page 2 REX D. DAVIS Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Appeal dismissed Opini on delivered and filed August 3, 2016 [CV06]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1754

HRA VILLAGE GREEN LLC,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SONYA OWENS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:23-cv-00062-BO-RN)

Submitted: October 23, 2023 Decided: November 7, 2023

Before QUATTLEBAUM and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sonya Owens, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1754 Doc: 14 Filed: 11/07/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Sonya Owens appeals the district court’s order remanding her case to state court.

*

 

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the 

district court’s order. HRA Village Green LLC v. Owens, No. 5:23-cv-00062-BO-RN 

(E.D.N.C. July 11, 2023). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

* Because Owens attempted to remove her civil case to federal court pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1443, we have jurisdiction over this appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d).

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1754 Doc: 14 Filed: 11/07/2023 Pg: 2 of 2