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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          11,712
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,189
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,116
<INVENTORY>                                      1,657
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                37,514
<PP&E>                                          18,016
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,156
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 215,018
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           50,718
<BONDS>                                        120,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                    (72,299)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   215,018
<SALES>                                              0<F1>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                33,983
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   22,250
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,318
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   109
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,090
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,333
<INCOME-TAX>                                       698
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                635
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       635
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.318
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.318
<FN>
<F1>PREVIOUSLY REPORTED INCORRECTLY.  CORRECTED WITH THIS FILING.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Albert Uriah MATHIS, petitioner, v. NORTH CAROLINA.

No. 18-6742.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of North Carolina denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONIC CO., LTD; 

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:23-CV-00285-JRG-RSP

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

Notice is hereby given that Kevin Hardy enters an appearance in this matter as additional 

counsel on behalf of Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Company, Ltd.

Kevin Hardy may receive all communications from the Court and from other parties at the 

following:

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP

1300 I Street, N.W., Suite 900

Washington, DC 20005

Tel: 202.538.8000

Fax: 202.538.8100

 kevinhardy@quinnemanuel.com

Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 23 Filed 10/09/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 270
DATED: October 9, 2023 Respectfully submitted,

By/s/ Kevin Hardy

Kevin Hardy

D.C. Bar No. 473941 (admitted in ED TX)

kevinhardy@quinnemanuel.com

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & 

SULLIVAN, LLP

1300 I Street, N.W., Suite 900

Washington, DC 20005

Tel: 202.538.8000

Fax: 202.538.8100

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS

Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 23 Filed 10/09/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 271
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

A true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was served or delivered 

electronically via U.S. District Court [LIVE]- Document Filing System, to all counsel of record, 

on this 9th day of October, 2023.

/s/ Kevin Hardy

Case 2:23-cv-00285-JRG-RSP Document 23 Filed 10/09/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 272
Taumu JAMES, petitioner, v. Debbie ASUNCION, Warden.

No. 18-5694.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 22, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

I,John C. Pintozzi, certify that:

1. I havereviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Lincoln Benefit Life Company;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

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

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and Iare responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:

 

a)                        Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

b)                       Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

c)                        Disclosed in this report any change inthe registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscalquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and Ihave disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

a)                        All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b)                       Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

November5, 2007
| /s/ John C. Pintozzi    |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
|                    |   |
| John C. Pintozzi        |   |
| Vice President and      |   |
| Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

E-3

----
Exhibit
32.1








Certification
of Co Chief Executive Officer





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)








In connection with the Quarterly Report
of Century Casinos, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to his knowledge:





(1)
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
  and





(2)
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.










Date:  November
6, 2009








/s/ Erwin
Haitzmann


Erwin
Haitzmann


Co Chief
Executive Officer
Marie Therese ASSA'AD-FALTAS, petitioner, v. CITY OF COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA.

No. 18-6089.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 3, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of South Carolina denied.
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2142

To suspend for 3 years the duty on fenbuconazole.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 10, 1999

Mr. ENGLISH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To suspend for 3 years the duty on fenbuconazole.

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

3 SECTION 1. TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DUTY ON

4 FENBUCONAZOLE.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following

8 new heading:

‘‘ 9902.32.86 alpha-[2-(4-Chlorophenyl)-

ethyl]-alpha-phenyl-1H1,2,4-triazole-1-

propanenitrile (provided for

in subheading 2933.90.06) .. Free No change No change On or before

12/31/2002 ’’.
2

•HR 2142 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

2 this section shall apply with respect to goods entered, or

3 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after

4 the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.

Æ
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVEOFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Kay L. Toolson, CEO of Monaco Coach Corporation, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant  to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that theQuarterly Report of Monaco Coach Corporation on Form 10-Q for the quarterlyperiod ended September 27, 2003 fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and thatinformation contained in such Quarterly Report of Monaco Coach Corporation onForm 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition andresults of operations of Monaco Coach Corporation.

 

 
|   |   | By:    | /s/  Kay L. Toolson |   |
|--------|--------|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|   |   |   | Kay L. Toolson           |   |
|   |   |   | Chief Executive Officer  |   |

 

 

I, P. Martin Daley, CFO of Monaco Coach Corporation, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant  to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that theQuarterly Report of Monaco Coach Corporation on Form 10-Q for the quarterlyperiod ended September 27, 2003 fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and thatinformation contained in such Quarterly Report of Monaco Coach Corporation onForm 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition andresults of operations of Monaco Coach Corporation.

 

 
|   |   | By:    | /s/  P. Martin Daley |   |
|--------|--------|--------|---------------------------|--------|
|   |   |   | P. Martin Daley           |   |
|   |   |   | Chief Financial Officer   |   |

 

 

Asigned original of these written statements required by Section 906 hasbeen provided to Monaco Coach Corporation and will be retained by Monaco CoachCorporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staffupon request.

 

1

----
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.31B

        MARYLAND                                                        Paris N.
Department of Business &                                              Glendening
  Economic Development                                                  Governor
                                                                        James T.
                                                                           Brady
                                                                       Secretary
                                                         217 East Redwood Street
                                                       Baltimore, Maryland 21202

April 2, 1996

Mr. Andrew R. Jordan
vice President - Chief Financial Officer
Guilford Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
6661 Tributary Street
Baltimore, MD 21201

                 RE:      $8,000,000 Maryland Economic Development Corporation
                          Taxable Economic Development Revenue Bond
                          (Guilford Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Facility), 1994 Issue

Dear Mr. Jordan:

         At its February 22, 1996 meeting, the Maryland Industrial Development
Financing Authority ("MIDFA") agreed to increase is insurance on the
above-referenced taxable bond held by Signet Bank from the present 30%, $2.4
million maximum exposure, to 50% with a maximum exposure of $4 million.  MIDFA
also approved the reduction in the cash collateral requirement for the insured
taxable bond by $25,000 per year for years two through ten of the amortization
of the taxable bond.  All other terms and conditions of MIDFA's insurance
remain unchanged.  The increase in the MIDFA insurance is contingent on the
settlement of an additional loan by Signet Bank to Guilford Pharmaceuticals
Inc., of $4.2 million.

         Contact David Steinhoff at 410-767-6371 as soon as a settlement date
is scheduled so an amended insurance agreement can be prepared for signature by
Signet Bank.

         Please indicate your agreement by signing on the acceptance line
provided on the following page. Return the signed original to David Steinhoff.

                                       SINCERELY,
                                       /s/ Stephen J. Lynch
                                       Stephen J. Lynch
                                       Assistant Secretary of Financing Programs

ACCEPTED BY:   /s/ Andrew R. Jordan
               --- ------ -- ------
               Andrew R. Jordan Vice President - Chief Financial Officer

cc: Barbara Curnin Kountz, Esq.
    Martha Hackett
    David J. Steinhoff
    Hans F. Mayer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MOHAMED ABDULKADIR 

MOHAMED,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General,

Respondent.

No. 22-2003

Agency No.

A071-714-251

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 12, 2023**

Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. 

Mohamed Abdulkadir Mohamed, a native and citizen of Somalia, petitions 

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his 

motion to reopen removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Mohamed’s request for oral 

argument is denied.

FILED

SEP 25 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 22-2003

§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. 

Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for 

review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Mohamed’s motion to 

reopen as untimely, where it was filed over sixteen months after the final removal 

order, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (motion to reopen must be filed within 

ninety days of final removal order), and petitioner has not established that 

equitable tolling of the filing deadline is warranted, see Avagyan v. Holder, 646 

F.3d 672, 679 (9th Cir. 2011) (deadline may be equitably tolled when petitioner is 

prevented from filing because of deception, fraud, or error, and petitioner acts with 

due diligence in discovering such circumstances).

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate 

issues. The supplemented motion for a stay of removal is otherwise denied.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Paul Wayne SLATER, petitioner, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

No. 17-8977.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Marvin PRICE, petitioner, v. Michael OVERMYER, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Forest, et al.

No. 17-8730.

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.
Syrus MARTIN, petitioner, v. GEORGIA.

No. 18-5646.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Georgia denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

versus

VERNON TAYLOR

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CASE NO. 9:23-CR-00007-MAC

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS

Pending before the court is the Defendant, Vernon Taylor’s, Motion to Suppress (Doc. #19). 

Taylor seeks to suppress incriminating evidence obtained during a search of his vehicle as a result 

of a traffic stop on September 21, 2022. The court referred this matter to the Honorable Zack 

Hawthorn, United States Magistrate Judge, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and 

orders of this court. The Government filed a response to the Defendant’s motion (Doc. #21) and 

Judge Hawthorn heard testimony and oral argument on September 26, 2023. Ultimately, Judge 

Hawthorn concluded that the traffic stop was lawful and the detention was not unnecessarily 

delayed. (Doc. #26.)

Taylor objected to Judge Hawthorn’s findings, conclusions, and analysis. (Doc. #27.) He 

challenges the sufficiency of the evidence relied on by Judge Hawthorn to find that Trooper

Seymore observed sufficient articulable facts to establish reasonable suspicion that Taylor was 

engaged in criminal conduct that justified the continued roadside detention. Taylor’s objection 

requires a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or 

recommendations to which objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

Case 9:23-cr-00007-MAC-ZJH Document 31 Filed 11/07/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 115
After conducting a de novo review, the court concludes that the magistrate judge’s findings, 

conclusions, and analysis are correct. Judge Hawthorn properly concluded that Trooper Seymore 

had specific articulable facts that Taylor was engaged in criminal conduct and therefore, his 

continued detention was justified. Accordingly, the Defendant’s objections are OVERRULED, 

and the report of the magistrate judge is ADOPTED. It is further

ORDERED that the Defendant’s motion to suppress (Doc. #19) is DENIED

Case 9:23-cr-00007-MAC-ZJH Document 31 Filed 11/07/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 116
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

LUFKIN DIVISION

ISMAEL ARREOLA and ISRAEL ARREOLA, 

Each Individually and on Behalf of All Others 

Similarly Situated

VS.

SOUTHERN INDUSTRIAL 

CONTRACTORS, LLC, and SAMUEL ESTIS

 

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

 CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:23-CV-00050

 JUDGE MICHAEL J. TRUNCALE

ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION 

TO EXTEND TIME FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS

Before the Court is the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Extend Time for Service of Process. [Dkt. 3]. Plaintiffs

filed their Complaint in this matter on March 14, 2023. [Dkt. 1]. Plaintiffs’ time for completing service of 

process on the Defendants is June 12, 2023. Thus far, attempts to serve the Defendants have been 

unsuccessful and Plaintiffs now seek a ninety (90) day extension in which to complete service of process on 

the Defendants. After considering the Plaintiffs’ motion and reviewing the pleadings on file and all 

applicable law, the Court grants the same in part.

It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Extend Time for Service of Process [Dkt. 3] is 

hereby GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff’s deadline to serve the Defendants with process is now July 27, 

2023. 

____________________________

Michael J. Truncale

United States District Judge SIGNED this 13th day of June, 2023.

Case 9:23-cv-00050-MJT Document 4 Filed 06/13/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 24
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2070

To provide for development and implementation of a single, unified prospective

payment system for post-care hospital services.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 8, 1999

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

on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Commerce,

for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case

for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the

committee concerned

A BILL

To provide for development and implementation of a single,

unified prospective payment system for post-care hospital

services.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Medicare Post-Acute

5 Care Payment Reform Act of 1999’’.
2

•HR 2070 IH

1 SEC. 2. MEDICARE SINGLE, UNIFIED PROSPECTIVE PAY2 MENT SYSTEM FOR POST-CARE HOSPITAL

3 SERVICES.

4 (a) DEVELOPMENT OF PAYMENT SYSTEM.—

5 (1) IN GENERAL.—By not later than January

6 1, 2008, the Secretary of Health and Human Serv7 ices shall develop and transmit to Congress a plan

8 to provide for a single, unified system for the pay9 ment under a prospective payment system for post10 acute care hospital services (including professional

11 services) within a course of treatment under the

12 Medicare Program under title XVIII of the Social

13 Security Act.

14 (2) ADJUSTMENTS FOR AREA VARIATIONS IN

15 COSTS AND OUTLIERS.—Such a system shall provide

16 for appropriate adjustments to take into account—

17 (A) appropriate variations in the costs of

18 wages and such other input costs as the Sec19 retary finds appropriate; and

20 (B) outliers that reflect bona fide vari21 ations in the case mix and severity of patients

22 being served.

23 (b) IMPLEMENTATION.—Unless Congress provides

24 otherwise, the Secretary shall implement the system devel25 oped under subsection (a) for items and services furnished

26 on or after January 1, 2010.
3

•HR 2070 IH

1 (c) RELATION TO CURRENT PAYMENT METHODOLO2 GIES.—The system under this section shall be designed

3 and implemented so as to supersede the various different

4 prospective payment system for such services, which use

5 different payment, risk adjustment, and other criteria,

6 under the Medicare Program.

Æ
Farris Genner MORRIS, petitioner, v. TENNESSEE.

No. 18-6624.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 14, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Western Division denied.
Otis Lamar TOWBRIDGE, petitioner, v. FLORIDA.

No. 17-9054.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 22, 2019.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, October 10, 2017.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, October 10, 2017

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A18A0336. THE STATE v. DAVID JORDAN SCHWEITZER.

Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW 

THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion is hereby GRANTED.