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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM INCOME
STATEMENT, BALANCE SHEET AND CASH FLOW AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001068874
<NAME> IMPLANT SCIENCES
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       6,152,536
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  423,737
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,000
<INVENTORY>                                    367,386
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,034,706
<PP&E>                                       2,024,815
<DEPRECIATION>                                 811,240
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,463,396
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,710,276
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       506,932
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,585,211
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,463,396
<SALES>                                      2,753,488
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,753,488
<CGS>                                        3,005,541
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,005,541
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (55,116)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (307,169)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (36,700)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (270,469)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (270,469)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.07)


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 205 (Tuesday, October 25, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61625-61626]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21245]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Health Resources and Services Administration


Advisory Committee on Infant Mortality; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting:

    Name: Advisory Committee on Infant Mortality (ACIM).

[[Page 61626]]

    Dates and Times: November 29, 2005, 9 a.m.-5 p.m., November 30, 
2005, 8:30 a.m.-3 p.m.
    Place: Washington, DC area hotel yet to be determined.
    Status: The meeting is open to the public with attendance 
limited to space availability.
    Purpose: The Committee provides advice and recommendations to 
the Secretary of Health and Human Services on the following: 
Department programs that are directed at reducing infant mortality 
and improving the health status of pregnant women and infants; 
factors affecting the continuum of care with respect to maternal and 
child health care, including outcomes following childbirth; 
strategies to coordinate the variety of Federal, State, local and 
private programs and efforts that are designed to deal with the 
health and social problems impacting on infant mortality; and the 
implementation of the Healthy Start program and Healthy People 2010 
infant mortality objectives.
    Agenda: Topics that will be discussed include the following: 
Health Disparities in the Maternal and Child Health (MCH) Population 
and A Life-course Perspective for Perinatal Health and Preconception 
Care. Substantial time will be spent in Subcommittee and full 
Committee discussions aimed at formulating the ACIM issues agenda. 
Proposed agenda items are subject to change as priorities indicate.
    Time will be provided for public comments limited to five 
minutes each; comments are to be submitted no later than November 
14, 2005.
    For Further Information Contact: Anyone requiring information 
regarding the Committee should contact Peter C. van Dyck, M.D., 
M.P.H., Executive Secretary, ACIM, Health Resources and Services 
Administration (HRSA), Room 18-05, Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers 
Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, Telephone: (301) 443-2170.
    Individuals who are submitting public comments or who have 
questions regarding the meeting and location should contact Ann M. 
Koontz, C.N.M., Dr.P.H., HRSA, Maternal and Child Health Bureau, 
telephone: (301) 443-6327, e-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d7b6b9b9f9bcb8b8b9a3ad97bfa5a4b6f9bfbfa4f9b0b8a1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="accdc2c282c7c3c3c2d8d6ecc4dedfcd82c4c4df82cbc3da">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: October 18, 2005.
Tina M. Cheatham,
Director, Division of Policy Review and Coordination.
[FR Doc. 05-21245 Filed 10-24-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4165-15-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

I, Scott Mac Caughern,  the Chief  Executive  Officer and Acting Chief Financial
Officer of Amnis Systems Inc. (the "Company"),  certify, pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, that to the best of
my knowledge:

(1) the Annual  Report on Form  10-KSB of the  Company for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
13 (a) or 15 (d) of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of  1934  (15  U.S.C.  78m or
78o(d)); 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: March 30, 2004

/s/ Scott Mac Caughern
----------------------
Scott Mac Caughern
Chief Executive Officer and Acting Chief Financial Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA AF 16-0288 IN THE MATTER OF APPOINTMENTS TOTHE DRUG TREATMENT COURTADVISORY COMMITTEE 

# FILED JUL 0 6 2021 Bovven Ure.!enwooci Clerk of Supreme Court State of Montane ORDER
The Honorable Gregory G.Pinski has resigned as a District Court Judge,and his position on the Drug Treatment CourtAdvisory Committee needs to be filled. The Court thanks Judge Pinski for his service to the Committee,to this Court,and to the people of Montana. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Honorable Matthew J. Cuffe is appointed to replace the Honorable Gregory G.Pinski for a term expiring on May 30,2022. The Clerk is directed to provide copies ofthis Order to The Honorable Gregory G. Pinski, the Honorable Matthew J. Cuffe, to each member of the Drug Treatment Court Advisory Committee,to Court Administrator Beth McLaughlin, and to the State Bar of Montana. DATED this day ofJuly,2021. ChiefJustice 07/06/2021
Case Number: AF 16-02887 ..14.— CIL_____. Justices

7
<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT 23.2

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 No. 33-91296, Form S-8 No. 333-56125 and Form S-8 No. 333-39700)
pertaining to the Bull Run Corporation 1994 Long Term Incentive Plan, the
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-91298) pertaining to the Bull Run
Corporation Non-Employee Directors' 1994 Stock Option Plan, and the Registration
Statement (Form S-4 No. 333-84833) pertaining to the issuance of shares of BR
Holding, Inc. of our reports dated September 28, 2000 (except for Note 3 as to
which the date is July 26, 2001), with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule of Bull Run Corporation included in the Annual Report
(Form 10-K) of Bull Run Corporation for the year ended June 30, 2002, filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission.



                                                              ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Charlotte, North Carolina
October 10, 2002
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-50205

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Shahied Summons, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:17-CR-249-1

Before Wiener, Dennis, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Shahied Summons, federal prisoner # 55633-060, appeals the denial 

of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for compassionate release. 

Summons argues that the district court improperly relied on U.S.S.G. 

§ 1B1.13 in violation of United States v. Shkambi, 993 F.3d 388 (5th Cir. 2021). 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 13, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-50205 Document: 00516279408 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/13/2022
No. 21-50205

2

He further contends that the district court failed to consider his postsentencing rehabilitation or provide specific factual reasons for denying his 

motion. In addition, Summons moves this court for permission to file an out 

of time reply brief.

We need not resolve whether the district court committed Shkambi 

error by treating the policy statement in § 1B1.13 as binding, see United States 

v. Cooper, 996 F.3d 283, 288 (5th Cir. 2021); Shkambi, 993 F.3d at 393, 

because the district court independently determined that compassionate 

release was not warranted based on its consideration of the 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3553(a) sentencing factors. See Ward v. United States, 11 F.4th 354, 360-62 

(5th Cir. 2021); cf. Cooper, 996 F.3d at 288-89. The district court stated that 

it had completely reviewed Summons’s motion, which advanced his 

rehabilitation argument, and then cited specific § 3553(a) factors as its basis 

for concluding that relief was not warranted. See United States v. Chambliss, 

948 F.3d 691, 693-94 (5th Cir. 2020); § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2). The district court 

was not required to specifically address each argument raised by Summons. 

See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007); see also United States v. 

Chavez-Meza, 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1965 (2018).

Because Summons has failed to demonstrate that the district court’s 

denial of his motion resulted from an “error of law or clearly erroneous 

assessment of the evidence,” the judgment of the district court is 

AFFIRMED. Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693–94. His motion to file an out of 

time reply brief is GRANTED.

Case: 21-50205 Document: 00516279408 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/13/2022
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4938 Received in Senate (RDS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4938

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 25, 2010

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To permit the use of previously appropriated funds to extend the Small 
        Business Loan Guarantee Program, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF SMALL BUSINESS LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM.

    (a) Authority to Use Funds.--Up to $40,000,000 of the amount made 
available under the heading ``Small Business Administration--Business 
Loans Program Account'' in title V of division C of the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, 2010 (Public Law 111-117) also may be utilized for 
fee reductions and eliminations under section 501 of title V of 
division A of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 
(Public Law 111-5) and for the cost of guaranteed loans under section 
502 of such title. Such costs, including the cost of modifying such 
loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget 
Act of 1974.
    (b) Extension of Sunset Date.--Section 502(f) of title V of 
division A of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 
(Public Law 111-5) is amended by striking ``March 28, 2010'' and 
inserting ``April 30, 2010''.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 25, 2010.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
<PAGE>




                                  EXHIBIT 23.1

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 No.33-91296, Form S-8 No. 333-56125 and Form S-8 No. 333-39700)
pertaining to the Bull Run Corporation 1994 Long Term Incentive Plan, the
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-91298) pertaining to the Bull Run
Corporation Non-Employee Directors' 1994 Stock Option Plan, and Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-101369) pertaining to the Host Communications, Inc.
Profit Sharing Savings Plan, of our report dated November 25, 2003, with respect
to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Bull Run Corporation
included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Bull Run Corporation for the year
ended August 31, 2003, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

Atlanta, Georgia
November 28, 2003
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U. S. C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of
Hill International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 (the Report), I, Irvin E. Richter, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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/ Irvin E. RichterIrvin E. Richter Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer


Dated: November 6, 2009
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


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


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Vistula Communications Services, Inc.
      (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2007, as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      Rupert Galliers-Pratt, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, to
      my
      best knowledge and belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, adopted pursuant to §906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1)  the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 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.




/s/
                Rupert Galliers-PrattRupert
                Galliers-PrattChief
                Executive Officer




Dated:
      August 20, 2007





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to Vistula Communications Services, Inc.
      and
      will be retained by Vistula Communications Services, Inc. and furnished to
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HALINA NOWAK,

Petitioner,

 v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney

General,

Respondent.

No. 15-71187

Agency No. A087-168-107

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted February 5, 2018** 

San Francisco, California

Before: D.W. NELSON, TASHIMA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Halina Nowak, a native and citizen of Poland, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) final order of removal. We have jurisdiction

under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and we deny the petition.

FILED

FEB 08 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* 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).
1. The BIA did not abuse its discretion by finding that Nowak’s untimely

asylum application was statutorily barred. Nowak failed to demonstrate how the

death of a Polish politician she knew twenty-nine years ago constituted a changed

circumstance that materially affected her eligibility for asylum. See 8 U.S.C. §

1158(a)(2)(D).

2. The BIA correctly decided that substantial evidence supported the

immigration judge’s (IJ) determination that Nowak was not entitled to withholding

of removal. Nowak did not suffer past persecution: she received only three indirect

threats over a fourteen-year period that did not result in harm, see Hoxha v.

Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2003), and she was able to earn a living

from her business while she was under government investigation, see Zehatye v.

Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1186 (9th Cir. 2006). Nowak also failed to show that

she would suffer future persecution if she returned to Poland. See

Bringas-Rodriguez v. Sessions, 850 F.3d 1051, 1062 (9th Cir. 2017). Indeed, the

individuals who contacted Nowak’s sister in Poland neither threatened Nowak nor

mentioned her prior involvement with the deceased politician.

3. The BIA did not consider the validity of Nowak’s second marriage in

making its decision. Thus, Nowak is not entitled to a new hearing based on the IJ’s

2
finding that her second marriage was fraudulent. See Lianhua Jiang v. Holder, 754

F.3d 733, 741 (9th Cir. 2014).

PETITION DENIED.

3
#### THE GELTMAN CORPORATION v. NEISLER MILLS, INC.

(Filed 10 July 1968.)

Trial § 21—

On motion to nonsuit, all of the evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and this is so because the jury may give more weight to the plaintiff’s evidence and may find according to the plaintiff’s evidence.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Falls, J.,*1 January 1968 Session Catawba Superior Court.

Plaintiff instituted this action to recover the balance alleged to be due on an account for treating fabrics with stain repellent for the defendant. By answer defendant denied that plaintiff had performed any services for it.

Plaintiff’s evidence tended to show that plaintiff began to treat fabrics with stain repellent for the defendant in December 1965, and continued until July 1966, at which time defendant began doing its own treating of its fabrics. That periodically invoices were sent to defendant and paid by defendant. That in July 1966 defendant owed plaintiff a balance of $5,052.28. That after this action was instituted defendant made seven separate payments' on the account, leaving a balance of $1,500.00 at the time of trial.

• Defendant’s evidence tended to show that defendant was merely a real estate holding company for Massachusetts Mohair Plush Company, Inc., and that plaintiff had never done any work for'the defendant.

At the close of all the evidence the trial judge entered judgment of nonsuit. Plaintiff appealed.

*Williams, Parnell and Matthews by Phillip B. Matthews tor plaintiff appellant.*

*H. Haywood Bobbins and Lefl.er and Gordon for defendant ap-pellee.*

Brock, J.

The plaintiff assigns as error the action of Judge Falls in allowing defendant’s motion for judgment of nonsuit.

The evidence was in direct conflict, and the question of whether defendant owed the plaintiff a sum of money was a question for the jury. In determining this question it was for the jury to find whether plaintiff had in fact performed services for the defendant.

In considering whether plaintiff’s evidence is sufficient to withstand defendant’s motion for nonsuit at the close of all the evidence, all of the evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. This is so because the jury may give more weight to *628the plaintiff’s evidence and may find according to the plaintiff's evidence. *Sneed v. Lions*Club, 273 N.C. 98, 159 S.E. 2d 770.

We hold that plaintiff’s evidence as disclosed by the record on appeal is sufficient to require submission of the case to the jury.

Reversed.

Mallabd, C.J., and Parker, J., concur.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1
 
                  SUBSIDIARIES OF CDRJ INVESTMENTS (LUX) S.A.
 
1.CDRJ North Atlantic (Lux) S.a.r.L. (Luxembourg)
2.Jafra Cosmetics International, Inc. (Delaware)
3.Jafra Cosmetics Handelsgesellschaft mbH (Austria)
4.Jafra Cosmetics A.G. (Switzerland)
5.Jafra Cosmetics International B.V. (The Netherlands)
6.Jafra Cosmetics S.p.A. (Italy)
7.CDRJ German Holding Company GmbH (Germany)
8.Jafra Cosmetics GmbH & Co. KG (Germany)
9.Jafra Cosmetics S.R.L. (Argentina)
10.Jafra Cosmetics Venezuela, S.A. (Venezuela)
11.Jafra Cosmetics International, S.A. de C.V. (Mexico)
12.Jafra Poland Sp. z o.o. (Poland)
13.Jafra Cosmetics Colombia, S.A. (Colombia)
14.Consultoria Jafra, S.A. de C.V. (Mexico)
15.Distribuidora Venus, S.A. de C.V. (Mexico)
16.Dirsamex, S.A. de C.V. (Mexico)
17.Reday, S.A. de C.V. (Mexico)
18.Qualifax, S.A. de C.V. (Mexico)
19.Jafra Cosmetics, S. de R.L. de C.V. (Mexico)
20.Jafra Cosmetics do Brasil Ltda. (Brazil)
21.CDRJ Latin America Holding Company B.V. (The Netherlands)
22.Latin Cosmetics Holdings B.V. (The Netherlands)
23.Regional Cosmetics Holding B.V. (The Netherlands)
24.Southern Cosmetics Holdings B.V. (The Netherlands)
25.CDRJ Mexico Holding Company B.V. (The Netherlands)
26.CDRJ Europe Holding Company B.V. (The Netherlands)
27.CDRJ Worldwide (Lux) S.a.r.L. (Luxembourg)
28.CDRJ Europe Holding Company GmbH (Germany)
29.CDRJ Latin America Holding Company GmbH (Germany)
30.Cosmeticos y Fragancias, S.A. de C.V.