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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           2,956
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   38,809
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     45,896
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                93,480
<PP&E>                                         107,971
<DEPRECIATION>                                  54,241
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 157,114
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           25,141
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,880
<OTHER-SE>                                     118,727
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   157,114
<SALES>                                        182,722
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               182,722
<CGS>                                          127,795
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  127,795
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   524
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  85
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,946
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,900
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,046
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,046
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.87
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.87
        

</TABLE>
#### THE STATE OF NEVADA, Appellant, v. NANCY ANN PEARCE, Respondent.

No. 12516

April 30, 1980

609 P.2d 1237

*Richard H. Bryan,*Attorney General, Carson City; *Calvin R. X. Dunlap,*District Attorney, and *EdwardB. Horn,*Deputy District Attorney, Washoe County, for Appellant.

*G. C. Backus,*Reno, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

Respondent was charged with embezzlement, a felony under NRS 205.300. A motion to suppress evidence was granted by the district court, and the.state has appealed. Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. Respondent contends, among other things, that the order granting the motion to suppress evidence is not an appealable order. We agree.

NRS 177.015 is the general statute dealing with appeals in criminal cases. In 1971, that statute was amended to provide for appeals from pre-trial orders granting or denying motions to suppress evidence. *See*1971 Nev. Stats, ch. 627 § 1, at 1450. However, the statute was amended again in 1973, deleting the provision dealing with appeals from orders on motions to suppress. *See*1973 Nev. Stats, ch. 730, § 1, at 1489. Therefore, at *384the present time NRS 177.015 does not provide authority for the state’s appeal.1

The state’s only argument as to its authority for the appeal is as follows: “The Respondent has overlooked NRS 179.510 which expressly provides for an appeal by the State from an order granting a motion to suppress.”

The state’s argument is inaccurate and incomplete. NRS 179.510 is clearly not applicable to this appeal.2 The state has failed to note language contained in the statute expressly limiting its applicability to motions to suppress “made under NRS 179.505.” NRS 179.505 deals solely with motions to suppress intercepted wire or oral communications. *See, e.g.,*Rupley v. State, 93 Nev. 60, 560 P.2d 146 (1977). The motion to suppress in this case had nothing whatsoever to do with the suppression of intercepted communications under NRS 179.505.

Finding no authority for the state’s appeal, we grant respondent’s motion to dismiss.3

Appeal dismissed.

1

 NRS 177.015 presently reads as follows:

1. The party aggrieved in a criminal action, whether that party be the state or the defendant, may appeal only as follows:

(a) To the district court of the county from a final judgment of the justice’s court.

(b) To the supreme court from an order of the district court granting a motion to dismiss, a motion for acquittal or a motion in arrest of judgment, or granting or refusing a new trial.

2. The defendant only may appeal from a final judgment or verdict in a criminal case.

2

 NRS 179.510 provides, in part:

In addition to any other right to appeal *the state may appeal from an order granting a motion to suppress made under NRS 179.505*if the attorney general or district attorney certifies to the judge or other official granting such motion that the appeal is not taken for purposes of delay. (Emphasis added.)

3

 In light of our disposition of this issue we need not decide respondent’s contention that the appeal should be dismissed for failure of the state to comply with NRAP 3(d).
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.T., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,

Charlotte, NC, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0352

Issued: February 25, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On January 4, 2021 appellant filed an appeal from a November 26, 2019 merit decision of 

the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards

assigned Docket No. 21-0352.

The Board has duly considered the matter and notes that the Board has jurisdiction to 

review final adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act.1 

For final adverse decisions of OWCP issued on or after November 19, 2008, the Board’s review 

authority is limited to appeals which are filed within 180 days from the date of issuance of OWCP’s 

decision.2

The 180th day following the November 26, 2019 decision was May 24, 2020. As appellant 

did not file an appeal with the Board until January 4, 2021, more than 180 days after the

November 26, 2019 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 21-0352 is 

untimely filed. The Board is without jurisdiction to review the appeal. Appellant has not offered 

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8149; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a) (2009).

2

Id. at § 501.3(e).
2

a reason to explain the failure to timely file an appeal with supporting documentation sufficient to 

establish compelling circumstances.

The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date 

of their issuance.”

3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 21-0352 is dismissed.

Issued: February 25, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

3

Id. at § 501.6(d).
#### MAX MORTON GOLDEN, Appellant, v. SHERIFF, WASHOE COUNTY, NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 7761

December 20, 1974

529 P.2d 208

*Legarza, Lee, Barengo & Doyle,*of Reno, for Appellant.

*Robert List,*Attorney General, Carson City; *Robert E. Rose,*District Attorney, *Larry R. Hicks,*and *Michael E. Mal-loy,*Deputy District Attorneys, Washoe County, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

In this appeal from an order denying a pretrial petition for habeas corpus, we believe evidence presented to the grand jury justified its indictment of appellant. NRS 172.155; Callanan v. United States, 364 U.S. 587 (1961); McWilliams v. State, 87 Nev. 302, 486 P.2d 481 (1971).

“[W]e are not now concerned with the prospect that the *417evidence presently in the record may, by itself, be insufficient to sustain a conviction.” McDonald v. Sheriff, 89 Nev. 326, 327, 512 P.2d 774, 775 (1973).

Other contentions raised by appellant are without merit. Cf. Baker v. State, 88 Nev. 369, 498 P.2d 1310 (1972).

The order denying habeas relief is affirmed.
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

G.S., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, RICHMOND 

PROCESSING & DISTRIBUTION CENTER,

Sandston, VA, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-1180

Issued: August 20, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

On July 14, 2021 appellant filed an appeal from an August 11, 2020 decision of the Office 

of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP).1 The Clerk of the Appellate Boards assigned 

Docket No. 21-1180.

The Board has duly considered the matter and notes that the Board has jurisdiction to 

review final adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act.2 

For final adverse decisions of OWCP issued on or after November 19, 2008, the Board’s review 

authority is limited to appeals which are filed within 180 days from the date of issuance of OWCP’s 

decision.3

 

1 The Board notes that appellant’s AB-1 Form requests an appeal from a purported June 30, 2021 decision; however, 

this correspondence was informational in nature and, therefore, does not constitute a final adverse decision by OWCP. 

The most recent final adverse decision of record is the August 11, 2020 decision.

2 5 U.S.C. § 8149; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a) (2009).

3

Id. at § 501.3(e).
2

The 180th day following the August 11, 2020 decision was February 7, 2021. As appellant

did not file an appeal with the Board until July 14, 2021, more than 180 days after the August 11,

2020 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 21-1180 is untimely filed. 

The Board is without jurisdiction to review the appeal. Appellant has not offered a reason to 

explain the failure to timely file an appeal with supporting documentation sufficient to establish 

compelling circumstances.

The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date 

of their issuance.”

4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 21-1180 is dismissed.

Issued: August 20, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

 

4

Id. at § 501.6(d).
#### ROY M. JONES v. THE UNITED STATES

[No. 45404.

Decided December 7, 1942]

*Mr. M. C. Masterson*for the plaintiff. *Messrs.*AnseTl, *Ansell <& Marshall*were on the briefs.

*Mr. L. R.*Mehlinger, with whom was *Mr. Assistant Attorney General Francis M.*Shea, for the defendant.

*517The court decided that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover in an opinion *per curiam,*as follows:

Plaintiff’s petition is dismissed on the authority of *Earl S. Schofield*v. *United*States, No. 45293, decided by this court on October 5, 1942, *ante,*p. 263. It is so ordered.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.§1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of ATEL Capital Equipment Fund VIII, LLC (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dean L. Cash, President and Chief Executive Officer of ATEL Financial Services, LLC, Managing Member of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as 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; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

Date: March 23, 2010



|                                              
|----------------------------------------------
|/s/ Dean L. Cash                              
|Dean L. Cash                                  
|President and Chief Executive Officer of      
|ATEL Financial Services, LLC (Managing Member)

A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF

PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

(SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Maxwell Technologies, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2007, I, Tim T. Hart, Chief Financial Officer of Maxwell Technologies, Inc., hereby certify 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 my knowledge:

(1) such Annual Report on Form 10-K of Maxwell Technologies,
Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2007, 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-K of Maxwell Technologies, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2007,
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Maxwell Technologies, Inc. at the dates indicated.

This certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



|                  |  |  |  |                                                                                             
|----------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                  |  | 
|February 29, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/    TIM T. HART                                                                          
|                  |  |  |  | Tim T. Hart                                                                                 
|                  |  |  |  | Vice President, Finance, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)

A signed copy of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Maxwell Technologies,
Inc. and will be retained by Maxwell Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U. S. C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Vistula Communications Services, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2006, as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Rupert Galliers-Pratt, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, tomy best knowledge and belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, adopted pursuant to§906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

2)               theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|        |   | /s/ RUPERT GALLIERS-PRATT |
|--------|--------|---------------------------|
|   |   | Rupert Galliers-Pratt     |
|   |   | Chief Executive Officer   |

 

Dated:August 14, 2006

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906, or otherdocument authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signaturethat appears in typed form within the electronic version of this writtenstatement required by Section 906, has been provided to Vistula CommunicationsServices, Inc. and will be retained by Vistula Communications Services, Inc.and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

 

----
EXHIBIT 4.6


                    AMENDMENT TO LATIN AMERICAN CASINOS, INC.
                   6% Convertible Debenture due June 13, 2001


     Latin American Casinos, Inc. and the undersigned holder (the "Holder") of
that principal amount of Latin American Casinos, Inc. 6% Convertible Debentures
due June 13, 2001 (the "Debentures") set forth below hereby agree, as of the
date below, as follows:

     1.   Within thirty (30) days of the date below, Latin American Casinos,
          Inc. agrees to file a registration statement with the Securities and
          Exchange Commission including the shares of Latin American Casinos,
          Inc. common stock underlying that principal amount of Debentures owned
          by the Holder as set forth below.
     2.   The Maturity Date as defined in the Debentures is hereby amended to be
          December 13, 2001.
     3.   The Holder has good and marketable title to the principal amount of
          Debentures set forth below free and clear of any security interests,
          pledges, mortgages or other encumbrances of any kind, and the Holder
          is authorized to enter into this amendment.


Holder:
------



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


Debenture No.: 2000-
Principal Amount of Debenture: $


Latin American Casinos, Inc.


By:                                  Dated:
   -------------------------------         -----------------
     Jeffrey Felder, President
Exhibit 11.1

  
                                EARNINGS PER SHARE
                                PRIMARY COMPUTATION
               ($ in millions, except share and per share amounts)


 
                                              Three Months Ended
                                                 September 30,        
                                            -----------------------
                                               1997          1996
                                            ---------     ---------

Basis for computation of earnings per 
 common and common equivalent shares:
  Earnings (loss) from continuing
   operations                                $(381.4)       $ 36.6
  Deduct dividends on 4 Percent
   cumulative preferred stock                    (.1)          (.1)
                                            ---------     ---------
  Earnings (loss) from continuing
   operations available to common
    shareholders                              (381.5)         36.5

  Discontinued operations                                     (1.2)
                                            ---------     ---------
  Available for common shareholders          $(381.5)      $  35.3
                                            =========     =========



Number of shares:
  Weighted average shares outstanding     72,475,492    74,231,367
  Shares issuable upon exercise of
   stock options, net of shares assumed
   to be repurchased                         690,964     1,269,703
                                          ----------    ----------
                                          73,166,456    75,501,070
                                          ==========    ========== 

Earnings (loss) per common share:
  Continuing operations                       $(5.21)         $.48
  Discontinued operations                                     (.01)
                                              -------       -------
  Net earnings                                $(5.21)         $.47
                                              =======       =======
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

OYSTER OPTICS, LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

ALCATEL-LUCENT USA, INC., CISCO SYSTEMS,

INC.,

Defendants-Appellees

______________________

2019-1255, 2019-1257

______________________

Appeals from the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Texas in Nos. 2:16-cv-01297-JRG, 2:16-

cv-01301-JRG, 2:16-cv-01302-JRG, Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap.

______________________

SUA SPONTE

______________________

Before LOURIE, SCHALL, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This court’s Order to Show Cause of May 8, 2020,

stated that, in the absence of a response by May 22, 2020, 

the opinion that issued under seal that same day would be 

unsealed. This court has not received a response from the 

parties. Accordingly,

Case: 19-1255 Document: 80 Page: 1 Filed: 05/27/2020
2 OYSTER OPTICS, LLC v. ALCATEL-LUCENT USA, INC.

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The opinion issued under seal on May 8, 2020 is hereby 

unsealed.

 FOR THE COURT

 May 27, 2020 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court

 

Case: 19-1255 Document: 80 Page: 2 Filed: 05/27/2020
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Quarterly Report of Xtra-Gold
Resources Corp. (theCompany) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31,
2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (theReport), I, JAMES WERTH LONGSHORE, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (a)
        the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
  (b)
        the information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  Date:
        May 14, 2009
        /s/
        James Werth Longshore
  By:
        James Werth Longshore
 Principal Executive Officer  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT
      32.2





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350)




In
      connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the nine
      months ended September 30, 2008 and filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Sherry L. Spurlock, Chief
      Financial Officer South Texas Oil Company (the “Company”), hereby certify,
      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) 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.




Date:
      November 19, 2008


/s/
                Sherry L. SpurlockSherry
                L. SpurlockChief
                Financial Officer