alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
cc: Hon. Jerome T. Tao, District Judge Daniel Alexander Alvarenga Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA
(0) 1947A 2
EXHIBIT 32.02**CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**     I, Theresa D. Becks, the Chief Financial Officer of Campbell & Company, Inc. as generalpartner, of Campbell Strategic Allocation Fund, L.P., certify that (i) the Form 10Q for the quarterended June 30, 2005 of Campbell Strategic Allocation Fund, L.P. fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) theinformation contained in the Form 10Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Campbell StrategicAllocation Fund, L.P.         CAMPBELL STRATEGIC ALLOCATION FUND, L.P.    By: Campbell & Company, Inc., general partner           By: /s/ Theresa D. Becks             Theresa D. Becks      Chief Financial Officer      August 15, 2005  
E 5
```
 
 
WHEAT - KANSAS CITY BOARD OF TRADE                                   Code-001612
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 01/03/12                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 5,000 BUSHELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      139,302
COMMITMENTS
  39,674   17,501   23,709   58,109   74,308  121,492  115,518   17,810   23,784

CHANGES FROM 12/27/11 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      2,000)
     739   -3,259      -85    1,373    5,027    2,027    1,683      -27      317

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    28.5     12.6     17.0     41.7     53.3     87.2     82.9     12.8     17.1

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      159)
      49       28       37       55       54      121      107
```

----

Updated January 6, 2012
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This Schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Enamelon, Inc. Balance Sheet as of March 31, 1998 and the Condensed Statement of
Operations for the three months ended March 31, 1998 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                  MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                        7,027,551
<SECURITIES>                  28,695,783
<RECEIVABLES>                 1,084,794
<ALLOWANCES>                  (16,272)
<INVENTORY>                   2,504,318
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              39,529,634
<PP&E>                        3,092,402
<DEPRECIATION>                281,957
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                43,015,583
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         5,788,634
<BONDS>                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
<PREFERRED>                   0
<COMMON>                      10,122
<OTHER-SE>                    37,216,827
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  43,015,583
<SALES>                       1,713,410
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              0
<CGS>                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 1,009,032
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              5,163,793
<LOSS-PROVISION>              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            (511,073)
<INCOME-PRETAX>               (3,948,342)
<INCOME-TAX>                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           (3,948,342)
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  (3,948,342)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 (0.39)
<EPS-DILUTED>                 (0.39)
        


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**AFFINITYGROUP, INC.**

 

**STATEMENTPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

I, Thomas F. Wolfe, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officerof Affinity Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), herebycertify as follows:

 

1.                                       Thisstatement is provided pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 in connectionwith the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly periodended March 31, 2005 (the “Periodic Report”);

 

1.                                       ThePeriodic Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

2.                                       Theinformation contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company asof dates and for the periods indicated therein.

 

 
| Date:   May 4, 2005 |                       |
|-------------------------------|----------------------------|
|                          |                       |
|                          |                       |
|                          | /s/   Thomas F. Wolfe |   |
|                          | Thomas F. Wolfe            |
|                          | Senior Vice President and  |
|                          | Chief Financial Officer    |

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906,or such other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting thesignature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of thewritten statement as required by Section 906, has been provided toAffinity Group, Inc. and will be retained by Affinity Group, Inc. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , 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.

November 2, 2016

s1026 

# Order

Clerk November 2, 2016

153558

NEIL SWEAT,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 153558

COA: 324846

Wayne CC: 12

- 005744

- CD

DETROIT HOUSING COMMISSION,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 2, 2016

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

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Carline CURRY, petitioner, v. CITY OF MANSFIELD, OHIO, et al.

No. 18-5568.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 9, 2018.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied. Petitioner allowed until October 30, 2018, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 166 Introduced in House (IH)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 166

              To repeal the Federal estate and gift taxes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 6, 1999

  Mr. Klink introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
              To repeal the Federal estate and gift taxes.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF ESTATE AND GIFT TAXES.

    (a) In General.--Subtitle B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
(relating to estate, gift, and generation-skipping taxes) is hereby 
repealed.
    (b) Effective Date.--The repeal made by subsection (a) shall apply 
to estates of decedents dying, and transfers made, after the date of 
the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 10.52



SECOND AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT



THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this Second Amendment) is entered into as of July 15, 2003 by and between Peter B. Bedford (Bedford) and Bedford Property Investors, Inc., a Maryland corporation and successor in interest to ICM Property Investors, Incorporated (the Company), and amends the Employment Agreement between the Company and Bedford dated February 17, 1993 as amended by Amendment No. 1 to Employment Agreement (collectively, the Agreement).



THE PARTIES HERETO HEREBY AGREE AS FOLLOWS:





1.

Amendment of Section 3(b).  Section 3(b) of the Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety to provide as follows:



(b)  Basic Term.      Subject to earlier termination as herein provided, the term of Bedfords employment hereunder shall be from the date of the Agreement until July 15, 2004; this Agreement automatically shall be renewed for an additional one year term unless either party notifies the other, in writing, not less than 90 days prior to the end of the original term or any renewal thereof that this Agreement shall terminate at the end of such term or any renewal thereof.



2.

Full Force and Effect.

The Agreement, as amended by this Second Amendment, remains in full force and effect.



The parties hereby have executed this Second Amendment as of the date first set forth above.





BEDFORD PROPERTY INVESTORS, INC.







By:

/s/ Dennis Klimmek



Dennis Klimmek

Its:

Executive Vice President









/s/ Peter B. Bedford



Peter B. Bedford
Keith HENDERSON, petitioner, v. MINNESOTA.

No. 18-5461.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Minnesota denied.
UN PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 7296

DARIAN ANTONIO COLEMAN , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. CPT ROBERT MILLER, f/k/a Lt Robert Miller, each defendant is being sued in their individual capacities at all times herein; OFC BRADLEY MILLS, each defendant is being sued in their individual capacities at all times herein; MAJOR FORD, f/k/a Cpt Ford, each defendant is being sued in their individual capacities at all times herein; RESIGNED MAJOR DANIEL DURBOSE, each defendant is being sued in their individual capacities at all times herein; WARDEN CECILA REYNOLDS, each defendant is being sued in their individual capacities at all times herein , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Anderson

. David C. Norton , District Judge. ( 8:14

- cv - 04747

- DCN )

Submitted : February 22, 2018 Decided: February 27, 2018

Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by un published per curiam opinion

.2 Darian Antonio Coleman, Appellant Pro Se. Christy L. Scott, SCOTT & PAYNE LAW FIRM, Walterboro, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished o pinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: Darian Antonio Coleman appeal s the district court’s order s: (1) adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants; (2) denying Coleman’s belat edly

- filed Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion; and (3) denying Coleman’s motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal . Parties are accorded 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (20 07). Although Coleman filed a motion for an extension of time to file his notice of appeal, the district court correctly denied that motion as untimely

. We therefore affirm that order. The district court’s order granting summary judgment was entered on August
3 , 201 6, and its order denying Coleman’s untimely Rule 59(e) motion was entered on December 19, 2016 . Coleman did not file his notice of appeal until March 25, 2017 , at the earliest . Because Coleman failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we lack jurisdiction to consider the propriety of either the August 3 or December 19 order s . Accordingly, we deny Coleman’s motion to clarify the record, affirm the district court’s order denying an extension of time to file a notice of appeal, and dismiss the remainder of Coleman’s appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and4 leg al contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART
Jeffrey Scott FINNEY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-5914.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 9, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

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

 

I, Nidal Z Zayed,President and Chief Executive Officer, in connection with the Report on 10-K ofTelesource International, Inc. for the fiscal year ended December 31,2007, (the “Report”) hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that tomy knowledge:

 

1)              The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2)              The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of Telesource International, Inc.

 
|   | /s/ Nidal Z Zayed                     |   |
|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Nidal Zayed                           |   |
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer |   |
|   | Dated: March 31, 2008            |   |

 

 

----
EXHIBIT 31

                        CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION
                          302 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT

<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 31

                        CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION
                          302 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT

I, Anthony Garson, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of China NetTV  Holdings,
Inc.;

2.  Based on my  knowledge,  this  annual  report  does not  contain  any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact  necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the  circumstances  under which such statements
were made,  not  misleading  with  respect to the period  covered by this annual
report;

3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information  included  in this annual  report,  fairly  present in all  material
respects the financial  condition,  results of operations  and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

4.  The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and  I are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a) designed  such  disclosure  controls and  procedures  to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others  within those  entities,  particularly  during the
period in which this annual report is being prepared;

b) evaluated  the  effectiveness  of the  registrant's  disclosure  controls and
procedures as of March 24, 2005 (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this annual report our conclusions  about the  effectiveness  of
the  disclosure  controls  and  procedures  based  on our  evaluation  as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation,  to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's   board  of  directors  (or  persons   performing   the  equivalent
functions):

<PAGE>

a) all significant  deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which  could  adversely  affect the  registrant's  ability  to record,  process,
summarize and report  financial data and have  identified  for the  registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any  fraud,  whether  or not  material,  that  involves  management  or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The  registrant's  other  certifying  officers  and I have  indicated in this
annual report whether there were significant  changes in internal controls or in
other factors that could  significantly  affect internal controls  subsequent to
the date of our most recent  evaluation,  including any corrective  actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.


Date:  November 10, 2005



/s/ Anthony Garson
-----------------------
Anthony Garson,
President, CEO & Director
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                              86,090
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        2,809
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    91,561
<PP&E>                                              99,432
<DEPRECIATION>                                     (18,736)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     181,475
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               26,291
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                               116
<OTHER-SE>                                         155,068
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       181,475
<SALES>                                             32,036
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    32,036
<CGS>                                               24,319
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       46,959
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (13,602)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             4
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (13,606)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (1.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0
        


</TABLE>
Ramirez D. DEWBERRY, petitioner, v. THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF MICHIGAN.

No. 18-7899.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 10, 2019.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Jesse INGRAM, Jr., petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-7716.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 4, 2019.

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

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-09-391   -      -CV

IN RE 	RELATOR

InN rReE BaArRbBaArRaA LeEwWiIsS, InNdDiIvViIdDuUaAlLlLyY, a	RELATORS

AsS NeExXtT FrRiIeEnNdD oOfF CoOlLtToOnN LeEwWiIsS, a

AnNdD aAsS ReEpPrReEsSeEnNtTaAtTiIvVeE oOfF tThHeE 

EsStTaAtTeE oOfF JoOhHnN LeEwWiIsS, DeEcCeEaAsSeEdD, 

ViIgrRGiInNiIaA AsSsSeElLiInN, TiIlLmMaAnN HeEiInN, AND 

JoOeE MoOyYaA

	------------

	ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

	------------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

	------------

	The court has considered relator’s’ petition for writ of mandamus , emergency motion for temporary relief, and real party in interest’s response to the motion ANDand and is of the opinion that relief should be denied.  Accordingly, relator’s’ petition for writ of mandamus and emergency motion for temporary relief are is denied.

	RelatorSs shall pay all costs of this original proceeding, for which let execution issue.

								PER CURIAM

PANEL  :  DAUPHINIOT, GARDNER, and MCCOY, JJ.

DELIVERED:  November 412, 2009
Danny Lopez CHAVEZ, petitioner, v. Joel MARTINEZ, Warden.

No. 18-5861.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 9, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Gabriel WERDENE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-5368.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
Ricky B. CHHEA, petitioner, v. Theresa DelBALSO, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Mahanoy, et al.

No. 18-5842.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 9, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
Marlene FEARING, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES TRUSTEE, et al.

No. 18M32.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.
OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF UNSECURED CREDITORS OF ALL TITLE III DEBTORS OTHER THAN COFINA, petitioner, v. AURELIUS INVESTMENT, LLC, et al.

No. 18-1496.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 20, 2019.

The petition for writ of certiorari is granted. The case is consolidated, and will be set for argument in the second week of the October 2019 argument session.

Parties challenging the First Circuit's ruling on the Appointment Clause issue shall file an opening brief on that issue on or before Thursday, July 25, 2019. The briefs are to bear a light blue cover and is limited to 15,000 words.

Parties supporting the First Circuit's ruling on the Appointment Clause issue and challenging the ruling on the *de facto* officer doctrine issue shall file a consolidated opening brief on or before Thursday, August 22, 2019. The briefs are to bear a light red cover and is limited to 20,000 words.

*2737Parties challenging the First Circuit's ruling on the Appointment Clause issue and supporting the ruling on the *de facto* officer doctrine issue shall file a consolidated opening brief and reply on or before Thursday, September 19, 2019. The briefs are to bear a yellow cover and is limited to 13,000 words.

Parties challenging the First Circuit's ruling on the *de facto* officer doctrine issue shall file with the Clerk and serve upon counsel a reply brief limited to that issue on or before 2 p.m., Tuesday, October 8, 2019. The briefs are to bear a tan cover and is limited to 6,000 words.

*Amicus curiae* briefs challenging the First Circuit's ruling on the Appointments Clause issue and/or supporting the ruling on the *de facto* officer doctrine issue is to be filed on or before Thursday, August 1, 2019. The briefs are to bear a light green cover and is limited to 9,000 words. *Amicus curiae* briefs supporting the First Circuit's ruling on the Appointments Clause issue and/or challenging the ruling on the *l facto* officer doctrine issue is to be filed on or before Thursday, August 29, 2019. The briefs are to bear a dark green cover and is limited to 9,000 words. An *amicus curiae* shall file only a single brief.