alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

The undersigned, John C. Carroll, Senior Vice President, Chief Operating and Financial Officer of Successories, Inc. (the "Company"), has executed
this certification in connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended August 3,
2002 (the "Report").

The
undersigned hereby certifies that:

IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the 16th day of September, 2002.

|/s/ John C. CarrollJohn C. CarrollSenior Vice President,
Chief Operating and Financial Officer |  | 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

---

QuickLinks
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-2113

JOE L. SPARKS, Petitioner, versus CLINCHFIELD COAL COMPANY; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (96-486-BLA) Submitted: May 19, 1998 Decided: July 16, 1998 Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joe L. Sparks, Appellant Pro Se. Timothy Ward Gresham, PENN, STUART, ESKRIDGE & JONES, Abingdon, Virginia; Cathryn Celeste Helm, Christian P. Barber, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Respondents. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Joe L. Sparks seeks review of the Benefits Review Board’s decision and order affirming the administrative law judge’s denial of black lung benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C.A. §§ 901-945 (West 1986 & Supp. 1997). Our review of the record discloses that the Board’sdecision is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the Board. Sparks v. Clinchfield Coal Co. , BRB No. 96-486-BLA, (B.R.B. July 23, 1997). 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.

AFFIRMED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TYLER DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. 

KYLIE BREANNE DURAND (10) 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

CASE NUMBER 6:23-CR-00096-JDK 

ORDER ADOPTING UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S 

REPORT AND FINDING DEFENDANT GUILTY 

The Court referred this matter to the Honorable John D. Love, United States 

Magistrate Judge, for administration of a guilty plea under Federal Rule of Criminal 

Procedure 11. The Magistrate Judge conducted a hearing in the form and manner prescribed 

by Rule 11 and issued Findings of Fact and Recommendation on Guilty Plea. The Magistrate 

Judge recommended that the Court accept Defendant’s guilty plea and adjudge Defendant 

guilty on Count Two of the Indictment. 

The parties have not objected to the Magistrate Judge’s findings. 

The Court hereby ADOPTS the Findings of Fact and Recommendation on Guilty Plea 

of the United States Magistrate Judge. The Court also accepts Defendant’s plea but defers 

acceptance of the plea agreement until after review of the presentence report. 

In accordance with Defendant’s guilty plea, the Court finds Defendant Kylie Breanne 

Durand (10) GUILTY of Count Two of the Indictment, charging a violation of Title 21 U.S.C. 

§ 841(a)(1) - Possession with the Intent to Distribute Methamphetamine.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of

___________________________________

JEREMY D. KERNODLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12th January, 2024.

Case 6:23-cr-00096-JDK-JDL Document 177 Filed 01/12/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 433
Matthew Wayne MINARD, Individually and in His Official Capacity as a Taylor Police Officer, Petitioner, v. Debra Lee CRUISE-GULYAS

No. 18-1435

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 14, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 05-50566

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DANIEL TARIN, also known as

Daniel Tarin Corrales,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:04-CR-1522-ALL-DB

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

Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Daniel Tarin

raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v.

United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that a prior

conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and

not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for

summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.1
                               CEO CERTIFICATION*

     Pursuant  to  Section  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.Sec.
1350, as adopted), Patrick O'Dea, the Chief Executive Officer of Peet's Coffee &
Tea,  Inc.  (the "COMPANY") hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:

1.     The  Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December
28, 2003, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the "PERIODIC
REPORT")  fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d)
of  the  Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934,  and

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

     IN  WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has set his hand hereto as of the 15th
day  of  March,  2004.

                                        /s/  Patrick  J.  O'Dea
                                        -----------------------
                                        Patrick  J.  O'Dea
                                        Chief  Executive  Officer












A  signed  original  of  this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided  to  Peet's  Coffee & Tea, Inc. and will be retained by Peet's Coffee &
Tea,  Inc.  and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon  request.

*This  certification  "accompanies" the annual report on Form 10-K/A to which it
relates,  is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is
not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Peet's Coffee & Tea, Inc.
under  the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of
1934,  as amended (whether made before or after the date of the annual report on
Form  10-K/A),  irrespective  of any general incorporation language contained in
such  filing.)




<PAGE>
James Doyle COLLINS, Jr., Petitioner, v. TEXAS.

No. 18-1589.

Supreme Court of the United States.

Oct. 7, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Texas, First District denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

KRISTOPHER GEORGE ARDOIN, §

§

Movant, §

§

versus § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-CV-399

§

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, §

§

Respondent. §

MEMORANDUM ORDER ADOPTING 

THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Kristopher George Ardoin, proceeding pro se, filed this motion to vacate, set aside or

correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

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 magistrate judge

has submitted a Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge concerning this

motion to vacate. The magistrate judge recommends the motion to vacate be dismissed as barred

by the applicable statute of limitations. To date, the parties have not filed objections to the report.

The court has received the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge,

along with the record, pleadings, and all available evidence. After careful review, the court finds

that the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the United States Magistrate Judge are correct. 

ORDER

Accordingly, the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the magistrate judge are correct

and the report of the magistrate judge (#2) is ADOPTED. A final judgment will be entered

dismissing the motion to vacate.

Case 1:23-cv-00399-MAC-ZJH Document 3 Filed 12/18/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 7
Furthermore, the court is of the opinion movant is not entitled to a certificate of

appealability. An appeal from a judgment denying post-conviction collateral relief may not

proceed unless a judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253. The standard

for a certificate of appealability requires the movant to make a substantial showing of the denial

of a federal constitutional right. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000); Elizalde

v. Dretke, 362 F.3d 323, 328 (5th Cir. 2004). To make a substantial showing, the movant need

not establish that he would prevail on the merits. Rather, he must demonstrate that the issues are

subject to debate among jurists of reason, that a court could resolve the issues in a different

manner, or that the questions presented are worthy of encouragement to proceed further. See

Slack, 529 U.S. at 483-84. Any doubt regarding whether to grant a certificate of appealability

should be resolved in favor of the movant, and the severity of the penalty may be considered in

making this determination. See Miller v. Johnson, 200 F.3d 274, 280-81 (5th Cir. 2000).

In this case, the movant has not shown that the issue of whether his motion to vacate is

barred by the applicable statute of limitations is subject to debate among jurists of reason. The

factual and legal questions raised by movant have been consistently resolved adversely to his

position and the questions presented are not worthy of encouragement to proceed further. As a

result, a certificate of appealability shall not issue in this matter. 

2

Case 1:23-cv-00399-MAC-ZJH Document 3 Filed 12/18/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 8
EXHIBIT 11



           INTERSTATE NATIONAL DEALER SERVICES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                        COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                       FOR THE YEAR ENDED OCTOBER 31, 1997
                                    




                                                                    Fully
                                                     Primary       Diluted

SHARES

  Weighted average number of common shares 
   outstanding                                      3,434,008      3,434,008
  Exercise of options and warrants, using
   the treasury stock method                          856,070      1,078,603
                                                      -------      ---------
        Common and common equivalent shares used
         to compute net income per share            4,290,078      4,512,611
                                                    =========      =========


NET INCOME

  Net income                                       $2,136,673     $2,136,673
  Interest income, net of taxes, on proceeds of
   exercise of options and warrants, using the
   treasury stock method                               91,543         10,009
                                                    ---------       --------
        Net income used for computing net income
         per share                                 $2,228,216     $2,146,682
                                                   ==========     ========== 

           Net income per share                    $  .52          $  .48
                                                     ======         ======
Exhibit 99.2



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 Annual Report of
Maxwell Shoe Company Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K/A (Amendment 1) for the year ended October 31, 2002 (the Annual Report), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of the Company, for
purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:



| |  |  | the Annual Report of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | the information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
| | - |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: February 25, 2003



|                                                                                                      
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/  Mark J. CocozzaName: Mark J. Cocozza Title: Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer    
|                                                                                                      
|/s/  Richard J. BakosName: Richard J. Bakos Title: Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial
Officer
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

EX PARTE:

DAVID CAYETANO

- VAZQUEZ,

Appellant. §

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 23

- 00196

- CR

Appeal from

the County Court

of Kinney County, Texas

(TC# 11472CR)

J U D G M E N T

The Court, treat ing this cause as a petition for a writ of mandamus, remand s to the trial

court for it to consider David Cayetano

- Vazquez ’s application for a pretrial writ of habeas corpus

on the merits in light of the Fourth Court of Appeals’ holding in A paricio and its progeny, and

determine whether

— at the time Cayetano

- Vazquez was arrested and charged with criminal

trespass

— the State was applying the criminal trespass statute under Operation Lone Star in an

unconstitutional manner by selectively prosecut ing males only, without justification.

We deny the petition for writ of mandamus without prejudice to Cayetano

- Vazquez ’s

ability to seek relief, if necessary, after the trial court has had an opportunity to reconsider its

ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 12 TH DAY OF DEC EMBER 2023.

L ISA J. SOTO, Justice

Before Palafox, and Soto, JJ., and Marion, C.J. (Ret.)

Marion, C.J., (Ret.) sitting by assignment
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                     $25,575,954
<SECURITIES>                                22,629,401
<RECEIVABLES>                               15,168,335
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            16,275,332
<PP&E>                                     957,740,356
<DEPRECIATION>                           (166,627,445)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             886,413,252
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       48,013,892
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                 56,250,000
<COMMON>                                     2,264,172
<OTHER-SE>                                 188,812,325
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               886,413,252
<SALES>                                     71,241,076
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            77,380,041
<CGS>                                       31,965,731
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            26,032,415
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          17,356,147
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             15,028,925
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            (1,808,742)
<CHANGES>                                    4,319,162
<NET-INCOME>                                17,539,345
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .65
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .65



</TABLE>
`DTCC Repo-US Treasury <30 YR - NYSE LIFFE - NYPC                     Code-045L2T
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 10/15/13                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF $5,000,000)                            OPEN INTEREST:       32,853
COMMITMENTS
   3,194    4,054    1,916   27,710   26,850   32,820   32,820       33       33

CHANGES FROM 10/08/13 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      4,328)
     115    1,413     -111    4,374    3,017    4,378    4,319      -50        9

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
     9.7     12.3      5.8     84.3     81.7     99.9     99.9      0.1      0.1

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       40)
       7        6        5       18       20       27       30`

---

Updated October 30, 2013
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TYLER DIVISION 

AUTHOR J. MANNING, JR., 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

TIME WARNER BROS DISCOVERY, 

et al., 

 Defendants. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Case No. 6:23-cv-529-JDK-KNM 

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Author J. Manning, proceeding pro se, filed a document titled “Motion 

for Removal Motion to Move the Case,” seeking to remove this case from the 114th 

District Court for Smith County, Texas to this Court. The case was referred to United 

States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell for findings of fact, conclusions of law, 

and recommendations for disposition. 

On November 17, 2023, Judge Mitchell issued a Report recommending that 

the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion to remove and remand this case to the state 

court. Docket No. 7. No objections have been received. 

This Court reviews the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de

novo only if a party objects within fourteen days of service of the Report and 

Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In conducting a de novo review, the Court 

examines the entire record and makes an independent assessment under the law. 

Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), 

Case 6:23-cv-00529-JDK-KNM Document 12 Filed 12/15/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 43
2 

superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to 

file objections from ten to fourteen days). 

Here, no party objected in the prescribed period. The Court therefore reviews 

the Magistrate Judge’s findings for clear error or abuse of discretion and reviews the 

legal conclusions to determine whether they are contrary to law. See United States 

v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989) 

(holding that, if no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard 

of review is “clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law”). 

Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and the record in this case, 

the Court finds no clear error or abuse of discretion and no conclusions contrary to 

law. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the 

United States Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 7) as the findings of this Court. 

Plaintiff’s motion to remove his case (Docket No. 1) is DENIED. It is ORDERED 

that this case is REMANDED to the 114th Judicial District Court of Smith County, 

Texas immediately and without the delay provided for in Local Rule CV-83(b). 

All pending motions are DENIED as moot. The clerk of court is directed to 

close this case. 

So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of

___________________________________

JEREMY D. KERNODLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15th December, 2023.

Case 6:23-cv-00529-JDK-KNM Document 12 Filed 12/15/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 44
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         June 2, 2022.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on May 26, 2022, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Contract 743 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2022-62, CP2022-68.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2022-11818 Filed 6-1-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Shane INGHELS, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-6586

Supreme Court of the United States.

February 24, 2020

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