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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                             944
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                       5000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  5944
<PP&E>                                           24066
<DEPRECIATION>                                    2492
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   27518
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            17826
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         42742
<OTHER-SE>                                     (33050)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     27518
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,205,985
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,205,985)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.104)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
##### 



1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Applix, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of
the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the
period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods
presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    [Not applicable.]c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal
quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,
the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):
 a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting.
 Date: November 14, 2005
    
    /s/ David C. Mahoney

David C. MahoneyPresident and Chief Executive Officer
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 16

- 3639

_____________________________ A NTONIO L. B UCKMAN , Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee.

___________________________ On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bradford County

. Ysleta W. McD onald , Judge

. March 29, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
W OLF , R OBERTS , and R OWE , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

____________________________

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Laurel Cornell Niles, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.2 Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney G eneral, and Daniel Krumbholz, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 22, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136725 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

KRISTY RAE BEECHLER,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 136725 

 COA: 282623 

Montcalm CC: 06-008172-DO 

CRAIG MICHAEL BEECHLER, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 12, 2008 order 

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

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

0915 

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. 

September 22, 2008 

 Clerk
# C_2011340EN.01001503.xml

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2011 — Transcatab v Commission

(Case T-39/06) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Italian market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price-fixing and market-sharing - Attributability of the unlawful conduct - Fines - Proportionality - Gravity and duration of the infringement - Attenuating circumstances - Cooperation)

2011/C 340/29

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Transcatab SpA (Caserta, Italy) (represented by: C. Osti and A. Prastaro, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by F. Amato, subsequently by V. Di Bucci, and lastly by É. Gippini Fournier and L. Malferrari, Agents, assisted by F. Ruggeri Laderchi, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

APPLICATION (i) for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 4012 final of 20 October 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) [EC] (Case COMP/C.38.281/B.2 — Raw tobacco — Italy); (ii) for a reduction in the fine imposed on Transcatab by that decision; and (iii) by way of counterclaim by the Commission, for the amount of that fine to be increased.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Dismisses the European Commission’s counterclaim; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the European Commission’s counterclaim;

| 3. | Orders Transcatab to bear its own costs and to pay 90 % of the costs incurred by the Commission; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Transcatab to bear its own costs and to pay 90 % of the costs incurred by the Commission;

| 4. | Orders the Commission to pay 10 % of its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Commission to pay 10 % of its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 86, 8.4.2006.

1

---
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136556 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 136556 

 COA: 284454 

Bay CC: 07-010334-FC

TAUREAN DNARDE JENKINS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 22, 2008 order 

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. 

p0828 

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. 

September 9, 2008 

 Clerk
1 The Honorable Robert E. Larsen, Unit ed States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Missouri, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 10-1898

___________ Jeffrey J. Gorman, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Western * District of Missouri. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner * of Social Security, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: January 5, 2011 Filed: January 10, 2011

___________ Before BYE, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Jeffrey J. Gorman appeals the district court’s 1 order affirming the determination that he is not entitled to a waiver of recove ry of overpaid disability insurance benefits. After careful review of the record a nd Gorman’s arguments for reversal, seeDavidson v. Astrue , 501 F.3d 987, 989-90 (8th Cir. 2007) (de novo review), we find that the administrative law judge’s (ALJ’s) credibility determination is entitled to deference,-2- as it was based on several valid reasons, see Juszczyk v. Astrue , 542 F.3d 626, 632 (8th Cir. 2008); we find no evidence of bias on the part of the ALJ, see Rollins v. Massanari , 261 F.3d 853, 857-58 (9th Cir. 2001) (quasi-judicial administrative officers such as ALJs are presumed unbiased, but presumption can be rebutted by showing conflict of interest or other specific reason for di squalification); and we reject as meritless Gorman’s argument that he was denied due process. We thus agree with the district court that Gorman failed to m eet his burden of establishing that he was without fault for the overpayment. See Coulston v. Apfel , 224 F.3d 897, 900 (8th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (burden is on claimant to prove entitlement to waiver of repayment); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.507 (even if Soci al Security Administration is at fault for making overpayment, claimant is not relieved from liability for repayment if he himself is not without fault). Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
1668.

#### Sirmans *v.*The State.

Submitted February 24,

Decided March 16, 1909.

*E. 8. Longley,*for plaintiff in error.

*W. E. Wooten, solicitor-general,*contra.

Russell, J.

The bill of exceptions should have been certified by the judge who presided in the trial in the lower court. , His successor was. without authority to certify the bill of exceptions; and consequently the writ of error must be dismissed. The ruling is controlled by the decision in *Scott v.*State, ante, 812 (63 S. E. 936).

*Writ of error dismissed.*
32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER



I, Ralph M. Amato, Chief Financial Officer of BoysToys.com, Inc. (the "Small Business Issuer") do hereby certify pursuant to Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code that:



(1)  The Small Business Issuer's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 (the "Report") to which this statement is filed as an exhibit, 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 Small Business Issuer.





|By:  /s/ Ralph M. Amato     Ralph M. Amato
     Chief Financial Officer | Dated:  May 23, 2005
|----------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Curtis Eugene Taylor, * From the 35th District

Court of Brown County,

Trial Court No. CR21349.

Vs. No. 11-13-00169-CR * December 19, 2013

The State of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

 This court has considered Curtis Eugene Taylor’s motion to dismiss his appeal 

and concludes that the motion should be granted. Therefore, in accordance with this 

court’s opinion, the appeal is dismissed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

KIRBY STEWART, A/K/A KEVIN

WILLIAMS,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 76 MM 2022

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 4 th day of November, 2022, the “Motion for Appointment of

Counsel” is DENIED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

 No. 08-7251 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MARGARITO DIAZ ORTIZ, a/k/a Margarito Diaz,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District

Judge. (2:05-cr-00110-WDK-FBS-1; 2:07-cv-00048-WDK)

Submitted: September 16, 2008 Decided: September 24, 2008

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Margarito Diaz Ortiz, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Calvin Moore,

Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
 2 

PER CURIAM:

Margarito Diaz Ortiz seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and a

subsequent order denying his motion for a certificate of

appealability. These orders are not appealable unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court

is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ortiz has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
# C_2009153EN.01000501.xml

| 4.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 153/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 153/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-531/06) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Freedom of establishment - Free movement of capital - Articles 43 EC and 56 EC - Public health - Pharmacies - Provisions restricting the right to operate a pharmacy to pharmacists alone - Justification - Reliability and quality of the provision of medicinal products to the public - Professional independence of pharmacists - Undertakings engaged in the distribution of pharmaceutical products - Municipal pharmacies)

2009/C 153/09

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Traversa and H. Krämer, Agents, assisted by G. Giacomini and E. Boglione, avvocati)

Applicant:

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I.M. Braguglia, Agent, assisted by G. Fiengo, Agents, avvocato dello Stato)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E. Skandalou, Agent), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: J. Rodríguez Cárcamo and F. Díez Moreno, Agents), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and B. Messmer, Agents), Republic of Latvia (represented by: E. Balode-Buraka and L. Ostrovska, Agents), Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer and T. Kröll, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 43 EC and 56 EC — Rules governing ownership of pharmacies

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Commission of the European Communities, the Italian Republic, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Republic of Latvia and the Republic of Austria to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission of the European Communities, the Italian Republic, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Republic of Latvia and the Republic of Austria to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.

1

---
1 The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of

Nebraska. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 98-3595

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. Angelo M. Brown, also known as Low, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: April 7, 1999 Filed: April 13, 1999

___________ Before McMILLIAN, LOKEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Angelo M. Brown pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute, and to possess with intent to distribute, cocaine base (i.e., “crack cocaine”) and cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Over Brown’s objection, the district court 1 assigned Brown one criminal history point each for three prior state convictions for p ossessing less than one ounce of marijuana. The court then sentenced him to 124 months imprisonment and five years supervised release. On appeal, Brown argues thathis sentence was excessive, and his marijuana-possession convictions should-2-

have been considered only as character evidence because they were “minor infractions.” We affirm.
Circu it precedent forecloses any contention that the three marijuana-possession convictions should not have been counted for purposes of calculating Brown & s criminal history score merely because they were allegedly minor infractions. See United States v. Jenkins , 989 F.2d 979, 979-80 (8th Cir. 1993) (defendant’s convictions for possession of less than one ounce of marijuana in Nebraska state court were properly included in criminal history score). We also note Brown was either represented by counsel or waived his right to counsel in each proceeding, and he was notsentenced to any term of confinement but was only fined. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4A1.2, comment. (backg’d) (1998) (uncounseled misdemeanor sentences where imprisonment was not imposed are to be counted in criminal history score).
To the extent Brown is arguing that his sentence was so excessive as to violate the Eighth Amendment, this argument is also without merit. See Neal v. Grammer , 975 F.2d 463, 465 (8th Cir. 1992) (this court narrowly reviews sentence to determine i f it is grossly disproportionate and will not disturb sentence within statutory limit absentabuse of discretion); cf. United States v. Mendoza , 876 F.2d 639, 640-41 (8th Cir. 1989) (mandatory minimum penalties for drug offenses do not violate Eighth Amendment & s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.-3-

A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
EXHIBIT 32

                    Certification of CEO and CFO 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 on Form 10-KSB of Xechem  International,
Inc.  (the  "Company")  for the year ended  December  31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Dr. Ramesh
C. Pandey, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  and Dr. Ramesh C. Pandey,
as Chief  Financial  Officer of the Company,  hereby  certifies,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:

      (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 results of operations of the
Company.

                                            /s/ Dr. Ramesh C. Pandey
                                            --------------------------------
                                            Name:  Dr. Ramesh C. Pandey
                                            Title: Chief Executive Officer
                                            Date:  March 09, 2005

                                            /s/ Dr. Ramesh C. Pandey
                                            --------------------------------
                                            Name:  Dr. Ramesh C. Pandey
                                            Title: Chief Financial Officer
                                            Date:  March 09, 2005