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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMANTION EXTRACTED FROM THE
SEPTEMBER 27, 1997 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-27-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-27-1997
<CASH>                                              78
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   110700
<ALLOWANCES>                                      3336
<INVENTORY>                                     117970
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                238491
<PP&E>                                           77201
<DEPRECIATION>                                   31175
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  319864
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            83265
<BONDS>                                         100000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            82
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    319864
<SALES>                                         662978
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                662978
<CGS>                                           511448
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   511448
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                136228
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   884
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               15902
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1484)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       531
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (2015)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (2015)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
```

```

----

Updated February 17, 2012
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1782

To clarify the categories of children eligible for enrollment at the Library

of Congress day care center.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 12, 1999

Mr. HOYER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on House Administration

A BILL

To clarify the categories of children eligible for enrollment

at the Library of Congress day care center.

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

3 SECTION 1. CATEGORIES OF CHILDREN ELIGIBLE FOR EN4 ROLLMENT AT LIBRARY OF CONGRESS DAY

5 CARE CENTER.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) of section 205(g)

7 of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1991 (2

8 U.S.C. 141 note) is amended to read as follows:

9 ‘‘(1) as a day care center providing child care

10 services to a group of children of whom at least 50
2

•HR 1782 IH

1 percent have 1 parent or guardian who is a Federal

2 employee, in accordance with the priorities for en3 rollment described in subsection (i);’’.

4 (b) PRIORITIES FOR ENROLLMENT.—Section 205 of

5 such Act (2 U.S.C. 141 note) is amended by adding at

6 the end the following new subsection:

7 ‘‘(i) The priorities for enrollment of children in the

8 day care center of the Library of Congress are as follows:

9 ‘‘(1) The first priority for enrollment shall be

10 given to children or grandchildren of Library of Con11 gress employees and dependent children who live

12 with such employees.

13 ‘‘(2) The second priority for enrollment shall be

14 given to children of other legislative branch employ15 ees and dependent children who live with such em16 ployees.

17 ‘‘(3) The third priority for enrollment shall be

18 given to children of employees of other Federal de19 partments and agencies and dependent children who

20 live with such employees.

21 ‘‘(4) Final priority shall be given to children of

22 other individuals.’’.

Æ
<PAGE>   1
EXHIBIT 11.1

                            WILD OATS MARKETS, INC.
    STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PRO FORMA NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE
                                  (UNAUDITED)



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                            THREE MONTHS ENDED   THREE MONTHS ENDED      NINE MONTHS ENDED      NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                                SEPTEMBER 28,      SEPTEMBER 30,           SEPTEMBER 28,          SEPTEMBER 30,
                                                    1996               1995                    1996                   1995
<S>                                             <C>                 <C>                    <C>                     <C>
Weighted average number of common
   shares outstanding                             2,996,866          2,315,631               2,545,205              2,315,631

Weighted average number of shares of
  preferred stock assumed converted to   
  common stock at the time of issuance            2,152,310          1,035,736               1,410,759              1,035,736

Common and common equivalent shares
  issued during the twelve-month period         
  prior to the filing of the Company's          
  proposed initial public offering calculated   
  using the treasury stock method                                      514,008                 351,793                514,008
                                                -----------         ----------             -----------             ----------

Pro forma weighted average number of
  common shares outstanding                       5,149,176          3,865,375               4,307,757              3,865,375

Net income (loss)                               $(5,405,000)        $ (276,000)            $(4,903,000)            $  791,000
                                                ===========         ==========             ===========             ==========

Pro forma net income (loss) per share           $     (1.05)        $    (0.07)            $     (1.14)            $     0.21
                                                ===========         ==========             ===========             ==========
</TABLE>
**Exhibit 31.1**
**Certifications**
I, William G. Gerber, President and Chief Executive Officer of EpochBiosciences, Inc. (the “Company”), certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company; 2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary tomake the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered bythis report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:
a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, includingits consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;
b) [Paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986]
c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end ofthe period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in thecase of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s boardof directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and
b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrols over financial reporting.     Date: August 11, 2004 By:   /s/ William G. Gerber  WilliamG. Gerber
William Len RAINEY, petitioner, v. TEXAS.

No. 18-8751.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 10, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas denied.
Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Medifast, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I Bradley T.
MacDonald, 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, to the best of my knowledge, that:

(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 the operations of the
      Company.


By: /s/ Bradley T. MacDonald
    ------------------------
        Bradley T. MacDonald
        Chief Financial Officer
        November 9, 2005


                                       17
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1419

To amend chapter 5 of title 28, United States Code, to eliminate a vacant

judgeship in the eastern district and establish a new judgeship in the

western district of North Carolina, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 14, 1999

Mrs. MYRICK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend chapter 5 of title 28, United States Code, to

eliminate a vacant judgeship in the eastern district and

establish a new judgeship in the western district of North

Carolina, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 1419 IH

1 SECTION 1. DISTRICT JUDGESHIPS IN NORTH CAROLINA.

2 Section 133(a) of title 28, United States Code, is

3 amended in the table by striking the item relating to

4 North Carolina and inserting the following:

‘‘North Carolina:

‘‘Eastern ............................................................................................. 3

‘‘Middle .............................................................................................. 4

‘‘Western ............................................................................................ 4’’.

Æ
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 45283

STATE OF IDAHO ,

Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.

KORY LEU ZIELKE ,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2018 Unpublished Opinion No. 442

Filed: May 4, 2018

Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Kootenai County. Hon. Cynthia K.C. Meyer , District Judge.

Appeal from order revoking probation, dismissed

. Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________ Before GUTIERREZ, Judge; HUSKEY, Judge; and LORELLO, Judge

________________________________________________
PER CURIAM

Kor y Leu Zielke pleaded guilty to possession of forged notes, bank bills, or check . Idaho

Code § 18

- 3605 . The district court imposed a unified four

- year sentence, with two years

determinate , suspended the sentence, and placed Zielke on probation. Zielke admitted to violating the terms of his probation on two occasion s and in each instance, the district court granted Zielke credit for time served and continued his probation. S ubsequently, Zielke admitted to violating the terms of his probation a third time . The district court offered Zielke the option of nine months of jail to complete his sentence or a retained jurisdiction . Zielke chose to serve nine

months of jail. The district court ordered Zielke to serve nine months of jail time. Upon Zie l k e’s

Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, the district court reduced Zielk e’s sentence by two months. The2 district court also issued an order granting good time to Zielke for five days off of each month of

his sentence. Zielke has since served his jail sentence and been released. On appeal, mindful that he “requested jail time and that he has been discharged from custody, ” Zielke continues to

assert that the district cour t abused its discretion in revoking probation. A case becomes moot when the issues presented are no longer live or the defendant lacks a legally cognizable interest in the outcome. Murphy v. Hunt

, 455 U.S. 478, 481 (1982);

Bradshaw v. State , 120 Idaho 429 , 432, 816 P.2d 986, 989 (1991). Even where a question is moot, there are three exceptions to the mootness doctrine: (1) when there is the possibility of collateral legal consequences imposed on the person raising the issue; (2) when the challenged

condu ct is likely to evade judicial review and thus is capable of repetition; and (3) when an otherwise moot issue raises concerns of substantial public interest. State v. Barclay , 149 Idaho 6, 8, 232 P.3d 327, 329 (2010). The only relief Zielke has request ed on appeal cannot be granted

because Zielke has satisfied h is sentence . Therefore, any judicial relief from this Court would have no effect on either party. See id.
Therefore, because he has served his sentence, Zielke’s appeal from the order revokin g probation is dismissed

.
Emmanuel MATHIS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-8968.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 28, 2019.

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

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1688 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1688

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to restore the deduction for 
the travel expenses of a taxpayer's spouse who accompanies the taxpayer 
                          on business travel.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 5, 1999

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to restore the deduction for 
the travel expenses of a taxpayer's spouse who accompanies the taxpayer 
                          on business travel.

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

SECTION 1. RESTORATION OF DEDUCTION FOR TRAVEL EXPENSES OF SPOUSE, ETC. 
              ACCOMPANYING TAXPAYER ON BUSINESS TRAVEL.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (m) of section 274 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to additional limitations on travel 
expenses) is amended by striking paragraph (3).
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to amounts paid or incurred after December 31, 1999.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., petitioner, v. POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION.

No. 18-853.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 20, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Be th Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein,

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.

June 10, 2015

s0603 

# Order

Clerk June 10, 2015

151386

- 7 & (42)

SC: 151386

- 7

In re KMN, Minor. COA: 322329; 322883

Newaygo CC Family Division:

14

- 000805

- AD

_______________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 26, 2015

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. The motion to

intervene is DENIED as moot.
Gina Brasher LANGLEY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-5013.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

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

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of FuelNation, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Charles Brodzki,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section
1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) The information contained
in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and result of operations of the Company as of, and for the periods covered in
the report.

                                  FUELNATION, INC.
                                     (Registrant)

                               Dated: December 7, 2003

                        By: /s/ Charles Brodzki
                        -------------------------------------
                        Charles Brodzki,
                        President
Kimberly MEADOR, et al., petitioners, v. APPLE, INC.

No. 18-1314.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 28, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FRANCES GARCIA,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of

Social Security Administration,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 11-15122

D.C. No. 2:09-cv-02039-NVW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

John W. Sedwick, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted March 15, 2012

San Francisco, California

Before: WALLACE, CALLAHAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

Frances Garcia appeals from the district court’s decision to remand her

disability claim for further proceedings. She contends that the remand should have

been solely for computation of benefits. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. 

FILED

MAR 28 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
1

 For similar reasons, we also reject Garcia’s argument that the district court

abused its discretion in not applying the credit-as-true doctrine to her expert

witness’s testimony. In cases, as here, where there are outstanding issues to be

determined on remand before a finding of disability can be made, application of the

credit-as-true rule is discretionary, see Vasquez v. Astrue, 572 F.3d 586, 593 (9th

Cir. 2009), and can be overturned only by the district court abusing its discretion. 

 

A district court’s decision whether a remand should be for further

proceedings or for a calculation of benefits is reviewed for abuse of discretion. 

Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2000). Remand for a computation

of benefits is not appropriate unless the record proves that the claimant is in fact

disabled. Strauss v. Comm’r of the Soc. Sec. Admin., 635 F.3d 1135, 1138 (9th

Cir. 2011). While the length of the proceedings here is regrettable, there are

outstanding issues to be determined on remand before a finding can be made that

Garcia was disabled for the relevant period. The vocational expert presented

evidence that there were jobs in the regional economy that Garcia could perform,

but the expert’s testimony conflicted with the Dictionary of Occupational Titles

(“DOT”). The district judge did not abuse his discretion because further

proceedings are necessary to determine whether the vocational expert can present a

reasonable explanation for the conflict with the DOT. See Massachi v. Astrue, 486

F.3d 1149, 1152–53 (9th Cir. 2007).1

AFFIRMED.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 7715** 

JAMIE L. WALKER , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. T. SIMMONS, CEO Jail Officer Staff; OFFICER HUBBARD, Sargent of Deputys , Defendants

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk
. Mark S. Davis , District Judge. ( 2:11

- cv - 00535

- MSD

- TEM )

Submitted : February 23, 2012 Decided: February 28, 2012

Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Dismiss ed by un published per curiam opinion

. Jamie L. Walker, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Jamie L. Walker appeals the district court ’ s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (200 6 ) complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b) (200 6 ). We have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for the reasons stated by the district court. Walker v. Simmons , No. 2:11

- cv - 00535

- MSD

- TEM (E.D. Va. Nov. 21, 2011) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Thomas T. ALFORD, petitioner, v. Stephen S. CARLTON, et al.

No. 18-8303.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2019.

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