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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           5,340
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,073
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      9,279
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                32,044
<PP&E>                                           1,468
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  37,394
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           32,686
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,775
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    37,394
<SALES>                                         34,501
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                           17,467
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   36,642
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (431)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,158
<INCOME-TAX>                                       227
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       931
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.10


</TABLE>
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

S.P., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

BOB STUMP DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER, Prescott, AZ, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-1158

Issued: January 18, 2024

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On September 5, 2023 the Clerk of the Appellate Boards inadvertently assigned Docket 

No. 23-1158 to a purported appeal from a decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation 

Programs (OWCP).

The Board, having duly considered this matter, notes that section 501.3(a) of the Board’s 

Rules of Procedure provides that a “person adversely affected by a final decision of the Director 

[of OWCP], or his or her authorized Representative, may file for review of such decision by the 

Board.”

1

 Appellant checked the box on an OWCP “APPEAL REQUEST FORM,” indicating that 

she was requesting an oral hearing before a representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and 

Review. She did not state any factual and legal argument in favor of a Board appeal or indicate 

that she was in fact filing an appeal.2 Thus, the Board concludes that it was not appellant’s

intention to file an appeal from a final decision of OWCP. The Board therefore finds that neither 

a “person adversely affected” by a final OWCP decision, nor an “authorized Representative,” has 

1

20 C.F.R. § 501.3(a).

2

Id. at § 501.3.
2

filed an appeal of a final decision issued by OWCP. As such, there is no valid appeal before the 

Board, and Docket No. 23-1158 must be dismissed. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as Docket No. 23-1158 is 

dismissed.

Issued: January 18, 2024

Washington, DC

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
Exhibit 12

               INTERNATIONAL MULTIFOODS CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

           Schedule of Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                                  (unaudited)

                             (dollars in thousands)



                                THREE MONTHS ENDED     NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                Nov. 30,   Nov. 30,   Nov. 30,   Nov. 30,
                                   1995       1994       1995       1994
                                -------    -------    -------    -------

Earnings before income taxes    $ 9,055    $18,190    $20,005    $59,005
Plus: Fixed charges (1)           6,749      6,655     22,563     17,733
Less: Capitalized interest          (26)       (87)      (121)      (256)

Earnings available to cover
  fixed charges                 $15,778    $24,758    $42,447    $76,482

Ratio of earnings to
  fixed charges                    2.34       3.72       1.88       4.31


(1) Fixed charges consisted of the following:

                                THREE MONTHS ENDED     NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                Nov. 30,   Nov. 30,   Nov. 30,   Nov. 30,
                                   1995       1994       1995       1994
                                -------    -------    -------    -------
Interest expense, gross         $ 4,384    $ 4,293    $15,281    $10,937
Rentals                           2,365      2,362      7,282      6,796
  Total fixed charges           $ 6,749    $ 6,655    $22,563    $17,733
O pinion filed Ju ly 28 , 201 6



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

___ ___ ____ No. 11

- 1 6

- 00 0 8 6

- C V

____ __ ____ IN THE INTEREST OF E.B.N.R

. , A CHILD

On Appeal from the 318th District Court Midland County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. FM 58, 482

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N This is an appeal from an order in which the trial court terminat ed the parental rights of the mother and the unknown and alleged father s of E.B.N.R

. The mo ther filed a notice of appeal. We dismiss the appeal.
The mo ther’s court

- appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and a supporting brief in which he professionally and conscientiously examines the record and applicable law and conclude s that the appeal is frivolous. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403 , 406

– 08 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 , 812 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978).2

In light of a recent holding by the Texas Supreme Court, however, an Anders motion
to withdraw “ may be premature ” if filed in the court of appeals u nder the circumstances presented in this case. See In re P.M. , No. 15

- 0171, 2016 WL 1274748, at *3 (Tex. Apr. 1, 2016). The court in P.M. stated that “a ppointed
counsel ’ s obligations can be satisfied by filing a petition for review that satisfies the
standards for an Anders brief. ” I d. Appellant’s counsel provided Appellant with a copy of the brief , the motion
to withdraw

, the complete reporter’s record, and a motion fo r pro se access to the appellate record. Counsel also informed Ap pellant of h er right to review the record
and file a pro se response to counsel’s brief. In compliance with Kelly v. State , 436
S.W.3d 313 , 318

– 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), counsel provided Appellant with a form motion to file in this court to obtain access to the reporter’s record and the
clerk’s record. W

e conclude that Appellant’s counsel has satisfied his dut ies under
Anders , Schulman , and Kelly

. We note that Appellant did not file in this court th e pro se motion for access to the appellate record . Nor did she file a pro se response
to counsel’s Anders brief. Following the procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman , we have independently reviewed the record, and we agree that the appeal is without merit and
should be dismissed. See Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 409. However, in light of P.M. ,

we deny the motion to withdraw that was filed by Appellant’s court

- appointed

c ounsel. See P.M. , 2016 WL 1274748, at *3.
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is denie d, and the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM
Ju ly 28 , 2016
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., Willson, J. , and Bailey, J.
---

Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATIONPursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Strategic Internet
Investments, Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending
June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"). I, Abbas Salih, Chief Financial Officer of the company,
certify, pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

| | 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: | July 31, 2006 |  | /s/ Abbas Salih           
|----- | ------------- |  | --------------------------
|      |               |  | Abbas Salih, CFO, Director

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,127
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,379
<ALLOWANCES>                                       176
<INVENTORY>                                     11,501
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                27,298
<PP&E>                                          48,946
<DEPRECIATION>                                  25,570
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  61,991
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,870
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            61
<OTHER-SE>                                      51,616
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    61,991
<SALES>                                         87,596
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                87,596
<CGS>                                           64,249
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   64,249
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                13,385
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  (31)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 160
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,543
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,840
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,703
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.02
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 217 (Thursday, November 10, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 68508]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22400]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


RTCA Special Committee 147: Minimum Operational Performance 
Standards for Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance Systems Airborne 
Equipment

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of RTCA Special Committee 147 meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a 
meeting of RTCA Special Committee 147: Minimum Operational Performance 
Standards for Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance Systems Airborne 
Equipment.

DATES: The meeting will be held December 1, 2005 starting at 9 a.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1828 L Street, NW., 
Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW., 
Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036.; telephone (202) 833-9339; fax (202) 
833-9434; Web site http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice 
is hereby given for a Special Committee 147 meeting. The agenda will 
include:
    <bullet> December 1:
    <bullet> Opening Session (Welcome and Introductory Remarks, Review/
Approve meeting agenda for 61st meeting, Review/Approve Summary of 
Previous Meeting, Review of Open Action Items).
    <bullet> RTCA Program Management Committee Direction and Terms of 
Reference.
    <bullet> FAA TCAS II Program Office activities and charter.
    <bullet> Plenary and working group leadership changes.
    <bullet> SC-147 Activity Reports
    <bullet> Surveillance Working Group: Hybrid Surveillance MOPS.
    <bullet> Operations Working Group: ``Adjust Vertical Speed, 
Adjust'' RAs.
    <bullet> Requirements Working Group (RWG).
    <bullet> Resolution of final comments and approval of the OWG 
Report: ``TCASD II Version 7 Display and Aural Issues''.\*\
    <bullet> Closing Session (Future Actions/Activities, Date and Place 
of Next Meeting, Adjourn).
    \*\Contact RTCA for a copy of the Final Review and Comment draft of 
the RWG report, which has been distributed to SC-147 members prior to 
the meeting. Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to 
space availability. With the approval of the chairmen, members of the 
public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to 
present statements or obtain information should contact the person 
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the 
public may present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 3, 2005.
Natalie Ogletree,
FAA General Engineer, RTCA Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 05-22400 Filed 11-9-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Order entered January 6, 2021

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 20
- 00937
- CV
RETAIL SERVICES WIS CORPORATION D/B/A PRODUCT CONNECTIONS, NATHAN STOUT, AMANDA VILLA, AND KATHERINE PALMER, Appellant s

V. CROSSMARK, INC., Appellee On Appeal from the 429th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 429
- 05122
- 2020

ORDER Before the Court is appellee’s January 4, 2021 unopposed motion for leave
to fi le its brief under seal . Appellee explains it seeks to file its brief under seal to comply with the trial court’s order temporarily sealing certain documents and testimony upon which appellee relies in its brief

. We GRANT the motion . We ORDER appellee to file an unredacted brief no later than January 8, 2021 and D IR E CT the Clerk of the Court to SEAL thebrief upon filing . The brief shall remain under s eal pending the trial court’s

hearing to permanently seal the exhibits and testimony at issue . Appell ee is DIRECTED to notify the Court within TEN DAYS of any permanent sealing ruling by the trial court.
We note volumes 3 and 5 of the supplemental clerk’s record omitted certain documents that were designated to be included in the record , and corrected

vo lumes have been filed. To avoid confusion, we STRIKE the original volumes 3 and 5 of the supplemental clerk’s record filed November 23, 2020 and December 17, 2020, respectively. The appeal will proceed on the corrected volumes filed December 4 and 18, 20 20.
/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
#### Jasvinder SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General,* Respondent.

No. 03-72737.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*210Submitted March 23, 2005.**

Decided April 11, 2005.

Martin Resendez Guajardo, Esq., Law Office of Martin Resendez Guajardo A Professional Corporation, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, David V. Bernal, Attorney, Margaret Taylor, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: B. FLETCHER, TROTT, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

*

 Alberto Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of *210the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

**

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM ***

Jasvinder Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), denying his motion to reconsider its denial of his motion to reopen proceedings after Singh was ordered deported in absentia. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is conferred by former 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). *See Kalaw v. INS,*133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1997). We review for abuse of discretion, *Cano-Merida v. INS,*311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir.2002), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying as untimely Singh’s motion for reconsideration because he failed to file it within thirty days of the BIA’s decision. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b)(2) (“A motion to reconsider a decision must be filed with the Board within 30 days after the mailing of the Board decision”).

We are not persuaded by Singh’s contention that his in absentia order of deportation is void because he did not receive a list of pro bono immigration attorneys.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to exercise its *sua sponte*power to reopen Singh’s deportation proceedings. *See Ekimian v. INS,*303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir.2002).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### WOODY v. CLAYTON

No. 439

Case below: 1 N.C. App. 520.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 23 August 1968.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-7439

DERRICK MICHAEL ALLEN, SR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

TED WIRE; ERIK MCCONCHIE, General Manager; WILL AUSTIN, Kitchen 

Manager; DAVE SIGUMUND, Kitchen Manager; CASEY HUMPHRIES,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at 

Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:19-cv-00689-TDS-LPA)

Submitted: February 23, 2021 Decided: February 26, 2021

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Derrick Michael Allen, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Derrick Michael Allen, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the 

magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss three of the four claims alleged in his 

complaint. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, 

and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); 

Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order Allen

seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 4332** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. LERICO CLAYVON YATES , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro
. Catherine C. Eagles , District Judge. ( 1:14

- cr - 00451

- CCE

- 1 )

Submitted : August 22, 2016 Decided: September 2, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Louis C
. Allen, Federal Public Defender , Mireille P. Clough, Assistant Federal Public Defender , Winston

- Salem, North Carolina, for Appell ant
. Ripley Rand, Uni ted States Attorney, Kyle D. Pousson, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: A federal grand jury indicted Lerico Clayvon Yates on one

coun t of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g), 924(a)(2) (2012). Yates entered a conditional guilty plea, p reserving the right to assert on appeal that he did not have a prior felony conviction to support his felon

- in

- possession conviction because his previous North Carolina conviction for attempted common law robbery was not punishable by a sentence exceeding one year. In his opening brief on appeal, Yates argu ed that his North Carolina attempted common law robbery conviction was not punishable by a sentence of imprisonment exceeding one year because the North Carolina Justice Reinvestment Act of 2011 required that 9 months of his 10

- to 21

- month sentence be serve d on post

- release supervision. As Yates now concedes, his argument is foreclosed by our recent decision in United States v. Barlow , 811 F.3d 133 (4 th Cir. 2015) , cert. denied , 136 S. Ct. 2014 (2016), which issued while Yates’ appeal was pending.
Yates filed a supplemental brief challenging his sentence, arguing for the first time that North Carolina attempted common law robbery is not a “crime of violence” for purposes of U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2K2.1 (2014 ). By failing to raise this issue in his initial brief, Yates has waived appellate review of this claim. United States v. Bartko , 7283 F.3d 327, 335 (4 th Cir. 2013); Suarez

- Valenzuela v. Holder , 714 F.3d 241, 248

- 49 (4 th Cir. 2013). Accordingly, we affirm the criminal judgment. We dispen se with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED