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

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
COMPANY'S  FORM 10-Q FOR THE YEAR ENDED  AUGUST 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETYBY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   AUG-31-1998
<CASH>                                         711,000
<SECURITIES>                                   125,900
<RECEIVABLES>                                  580,700
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,608,200
<PP&E>                                       1,585,452
<DEPRECIATION>                              (1,177,052)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,363,100
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,354,500
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        120
<COMMON>                                       115,700
<OTHER-SE>                                     817,880
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,363,100
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               566,900
<CGS>                                        1,091,700
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,771,500
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   700
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,400
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,209,700)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,209,700)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.17)
        

</TABLE>
<Page>

                                                                   Exhibit 11.1


Statement re computation of per share earnings

Earnings per share - basic, are based upon the Company's weighted average number
of common shares outstanding.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                          2003      2002      2001
                                                    (In thousands - except per share data)
<S>                                                      <C>      <C>       <C>
Net Income                                               $3,544   $ 2,370   $ 1,295
                                                         ======   =======   =======
Weighted average shares outstanding - basic               9,466    10,049    10,956
Shares issuable upon exercise of dilutive options           567       209       191
Less: shares assumed repurchased                           (331)      (69)      (56)
                                                         ------   -------   -------
Weighted average shares outstanding - diluted             9,702    10,189    11,091
                                                         ======   =======   =======
Earnings per share - basic                                $0.37     $0.24     $0.12
Earnings per share - diluted                              $0.37     $0.23     $0.12
</TABLE>
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

270 

KA 13-00966 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., LINDLEY, VALENTINO, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JASON E. SALOIS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

 

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (TIMOTHY P. MURPHY OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (NICHOLAS T. TEXIDO

OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Kenneth F. Case,

J.), rendered May 1, 2013. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his

plea of guilty, of criminal sexual act in the first degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him

upon his plea of guilty of criminal sexual act in the first degree

(Penal Law § 130.50 [3]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the

record establishes that he knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently

waived the right to appeal (see generally People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248,

256), and that valid waiver forecloses any challenge by defendant to

the severity of the sentence (see id. at 255; see generally People v

Lococo, 92 NY2d 825, 827; People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737).

Entered: March 20, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 20, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-50923 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MARISOL MINJAREZ SARABIA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:05-CR-4-2

-------------------- Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Marisol Minjarez Sarabia appeals her guilty plea conviction and sentence for maintaining a premises within 1,000 feet of a school for the purpose of distributing a controlled substance and aiding and abetting. She argues that the Government relied on “extra-verdict facts” in declining to file a motion for a downward departure in violation of her Sixth Amendment rights. The Government seeks to enforce the waiver in the plea agreement,No. 05-50923 -2- arguing that the appeal-waiver provision in Sarabia’s plea agreement bars her appeal. Sarabia does not argue that the waiver-of-appeal provision in her plea agreement was unknowing or involuntary. Moreover, at rearraignment, Sarabia acknowledged the existence of the plea agreement and the fact that she waived the right to appeal her conviction and sentence. She also stated that she had read the plea agreement before signing it and that she was entering into the plea voluntarily. The fact that Sarabia waived her right to appeal prior to the decision in United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005), does not change this result. See United States v.
Burns , 433 F.3d 442, 450-51 (5th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, Sarabia’s appeal is barred by the waiver contained in the plea agreement. United States v. Portillo , 18 F.3d 290, 292 (5th Cir. 1994).
AFFIRMED.
/662-(3 &$• A- c«*s*Mo°°ii-ti-vst-cz- ORIGINAL

Tlli'aJ roorT (jtibissv AMo D~hDCr-U-WoM

-V ©OUBTOFCRI^INALAPPEALS CRTNSZ-NfaL fiffBAt-S

STATE oFT^yas FEB 122015 XMTHE STATE OF

at^fl -E£XA££|LEO-iN AMAcosta,Cf©rk COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

N\0TZON fog /?EH£At\TM FEB12»

Abel Acosta, Clerk

H>Th ft ttefl/atrAPLF rTuD&ES QF THE CnvRToF c^mt *ai kWt*i eg

fn<?l/e$ th',$ HONOR ABIE CovflT f^jr^r-t^ /*?fWsr- ^M-^a^y cpf

•fcQgy/4 JLus +k& Cm/H* +he -fa/leus/rui g

%n&r

-X__

Cwj of 7w*/lS entity Te^s&r ih* ofPene*. ^AjyAL/^^^^^

h CAM** N**% D-h&C-H-fotOW.Tfl* UtiTitHt.*, ^{fmJ ie+hi.to^+efajto^n

U^ JfatCM PtfTrrcr *y<0~VaS *tflM**+o* IO-3l-l*tifn.Z^£*,M*l\-lhZt*-QL.

fU CoUfT tfAflmtfil+r.fzro* *ndsUa*JWf4£ oubStmJ^fhJ from +he vote*
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 33/2013 (repealed)Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 33/2013 of 17 January 2013 fixing the export refunds on poultrymeat (repealed)

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 33/2013                     

# of 17 January 2013

# fixing the export refunds on poultrymeat (repealed)

F1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                        

Textual Amendments

F1Repealed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 360/2013 of 18 April 2013 fixing the export refunds on poultrymeat.
STATE v. PEEBLES.

No. COA06-1252.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed September 4, 2007.

Certification Date September 24, 2007.

Appeal from Halifax (02CRS56460, 02CRS57979).

Case reported without published opinion Affirmed.
IN RE P.A.B.

No. COA06-669

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Filed April 17, 2007

Certification Date May 7, 2007

Appeal from Pitt (05JB229).

Cases reported without published opinion. Vacated in part and affirmed in part.
S. 3218 

One Hundred Tenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and eight 

An Act 

To extend the pilot program for volunteer groups to obtain criminal history background checks. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Criminal History Background 

Checks Pilot Extension Act of 2008’’. 

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF PILOT PROGRAM. 

Section 108(a)(3)(A) of the PROTECT Act (42 U.S.C. 5119a 

note) is amended by striking ‘‘a 60-month’’ and inserting ‘‘a 66- 

month’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                               9
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    82545
<ALLOWANCES>                                      2604
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                114222
<PP&E>                                          260218
<DEPRECIATION>                                  148887
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1541834
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            80189
<BONDS>                                         565000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            16
<OTHER-SE>                                       99791
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1541834
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                249124
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   189680
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   995
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 15651
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               63611
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  10489
<INCOME-TAX>                                      1500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               8989
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      8989
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.61
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.56


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, John D. Reedy, as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
Michael Foods, Inc. (the Company) certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



(1) the accompanying Form 10-Q report for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission (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.



Dated: November 4, 2004



By:

/s/ John D. ReedyJohn D. ReedyExecutive Vice President and ChiefFinancial Officer
Ellis Lorenzo MILES, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia, Appellee.

Record No. 052568.

Supreme Court of Virginia.

June 8, 2007.

Upon a Petition for Rehearing.

By order entered on November 28, 2006, this Court awarded the Commonwealth a rehearing pursuant to the provisions of Rule 5:39(e). Upon consideration of the record, the briefs originally filed by the parties, the petition for rehearing filed by the Commonwealth, and the argument of the parties, the Court concludes that the judgment of this Court and opinion issued on September 15, 2006 should not be set aside and should stand as issued. Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is reversed and the Commonwealth's petition filed pursuant to former Code § 37.1-70.6 is dismissed with prejudice.

This order shall be published in the Virginia Reports and shall be certified to the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond.

Justice KINSER, with whom Justice LEMONS joins, concurring.

While I agree with the majority that the Court arrived at the proper result in its decision in *Miles v. Commonwealth,* 272 Va. 302, 634 S.E.2d 330 (2006), I write separately because, in my view, the rationale underlying that opinion is overbroad and unnecessary to dispose of the issues presented in this case.

*925The Commonwealth's own witness, Dr. Christine A. Nogues, testified that Ellis Lorenzo Miles' score on the Rapid Risk Assessment for Sex Offender Recidivism (RRASOR) was inaccurately calculated as four instead of three. At oral argument before this Court, the Commonwealth conceded that, if Miles had initially received a score of three on the RRASOR, the Commonwealth would not have forwarded his name to the Commitment Review Committee pursuant to former Code § 37.2-903(C) and would not have initiated any further proceedings under the Sexually Violent Predators Act (the Act), against Miles.

Since Miles has a substantial liberty interest at stake, *see Townes v. Commonwealth,* 269 Va. 234, 240, 609 S.E.2d 1, 4 (2005), in my view, the Commonwealth should not be allowed to proceed with its petition to have Miles declared a sexually violent predator under the Act when its *own expert witness* admitted the initial scoring that caused Miles name to be forwarded to the Commitment Review Committee for further assessment was inaccurate. That reason alone requires dismissal of the Commonwealth's petition. Thus, it is not necessary for the majority to decide whether a "correctly computed score" is a "condition precedent" to initiating proceedings under the Act to have an inmate declared a sexually violent predator. The majority's rationale will encourage a battle between expert witnesses with regard to whether an inmate received "a correctly computed score" and in turn, whether proceedings under the Act should ever have been commenced against a particular inmate. "An appellate court decides cases `on the best and narrowest ground available.'" *Luginbyhl v. Commonwealth,* 48 Va.App. 58, 64, 628 S.E.2d 74, 77 (2006) (quoting *Air Courier Conference v. American Postal Workers Union,* 498 U.S. 517, 531, 111 S.Ct. 913, 112 L.Ed.2d 1125 (1991) (Stevens, J., concurring)).

For these reasons, I respectfully concur.
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 287/2013 (repealed)Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 287/2013 of 22 March 2013 amending Annexes IV and VIII to Council Regulation (EC)            No 73/2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy (repealed)         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 287/2013                     

# of 22 March 2013

# amending Annexes IV and VIII to Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for                        farmers under the common agricultural policy (repealed)                     

F1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                        

Textual Amendments

F1Repealed by Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing rules for direct                                 payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation                                 (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5557 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a full deduction 

for meals and lodging in connection with medical care. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 6, 2008 

Mr. PLATTS 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 allow a 

full deduction for meals and lodging in connection with 

medical care. 

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

3 SECTION 1. FULL DEDUCTION FOR MEALS AND LODGING 

4 IN CONNECTION WITH MEDICAL CARE. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (2) of section 213(d) 

6 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to amounts 

7 paid for certain lodging away from home treated as paid 

8 for medical care) is amended— 

9 (1) by inserting ‘‘meals and’’ before ‘‘lodging’’ 

10 in the heading, 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5557 IH

1 (2) by inserting ‘‘meals and’’ before ‘‘lodging’’ 

2 in the text, and 

3 (3) by striking the last sentence. 

4 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

5 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

6 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification 
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 
(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,
Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,
Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), I, Dan R. Lee, Chairman, President and Chief
Executive Officer of Microtek Medical Holdings, Inc., a Georgia corporation (the
Company), do hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:

This
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 (the Form
10-Q) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in this Form 10-Q fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.

|May 10, 2005 | /s/ Dan R. Lee                                            
|------------ | ----------------------------------------------------------
|             | Dan R. Lee
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

March 29, 2010 

0322 

Order 

 

March 29, 2010 

140315 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 140315 

 COA: 286329 

Oakland CC: 08-219177-FH 

ZACHERY TYRONE RODGERS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 12, 2009 

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.
CONSENT OF P & E MINING CONSULTANTS INC.





We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts" and to the use of our Technical Report entitled Technical Report and Resource Estimate (the Report) on The Fuwan Property, Guangdong Province, China for Minco Silver Corporation, dated November 3, 2005, prepared in compliance with National Instrument 43-101 and Form 43-101F1 in the Annual Registration Statement (Form 20-F) of Minco Mining & Metals Corporation (the Company).





We have read the Annual Registration Statement (Form 20-F), the National Instrument 43-101 (the "Instrument"), the Companion Policy 43-101CP, and Form 43-101F1 (the "Form 43-101F1"), and confirm that:



(a)

we have no reason to believe that there are any misrepresentations in the information contained in the Annual Registration Statement (Form 20-F) derived from The Report or that is within our knowledge as a result of the investigations and enquiries made by us in connection with the preparation of the Report;



(b)

the Report complies with the requirements of the Instrument and Form 43-101F1.



Further, we hereby confirm our consent to the Company's use of the Annual Registration Statement (Form 20-F) for its regulatory filing purposes and its disclosure to the public.

[ex141004.gif]

[ex141002.gif]



________________________

Eugene Puritch, P.Eng.

Tracy Armstrong, P.Geo.

President

Sr. Associate Geologist

P&E Mining Consultants Inc.

P&E Mining Consultants Inc.





Brampton, Ontario, Canada

June 9, 2006
STATE of North Carolina v. Vernon Seymore BULLOCK.

No. 20P06-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 14, 2006.

Charlesena Walker, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Vernon Seymore Bullock.

Christopher Brooks, Assistant Attorney General, C. Colon Willoughby, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 25th day of July 2006 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th day of December 2006."
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

George A. Reihner and :

Judith A. Reihner, his wife, :

Appellants :

:

v. : No. 256 C.D. 2017

:

The City of Scranton Zoning :

Hearing Board :

O R D E R

NOW, February 1, 2018, having considered appellee Green Ridge 

Neighborhood Association’s application for reargument, the application is denied.

 

 MARY HANNAH LEAVITT,

 President Judge