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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           7,630
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,767
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      8,573
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                35,901
<PP&E>                                           1,495
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  41,459
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           34,761
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,775
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    41,459
<SALES>                                         18,097
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                            9,512
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   18,806
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (189)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,087
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (207)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,880
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.29


</TABLE>
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5528 

To enhance the integrity of the United States against the threat of terrorism. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 15, 2010 

Mr. CARNEY (for himself and Mr. BILIRAKIS) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently 

determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To enhance the integrity of the United States against the 

threat of terrorism. 

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

3 SECTION 1. BORDER SECURITY AND IMMIGRATION EN4 FORCEMENT OF STATE AND LOCAL LAW EN5 FORCEMENT PERSONNEL. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—There are authorized to be appro7 priated such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 

8 2011, to remain available until September 30, 2012, for 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5528 IH

1 the purpose of enhancing the integrity of the United 

2 States against the threat of terrorism. 

3 (b) USE OF FUNDS.—From amounts made available 

4 under subsection (a), the Secretary of Homeland Security 

5 may reimburse a State or political subdivision described 

6 in subsection (c) for the expenses described in subsection 

7 (d). 

8 (c) ELIGIBLE RECIPIENTS.—A State, or a political 

9 subdivision of a State, is eligible for reimbursement under 

10 subsection (b) if the State or political subdivision— 

11 (1) has entered into a written agreement de12 scribed in section 287(g) of the Immigration and 

13 Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1357(g)) under which cer14 tain officers or employees of the State or subdivision 

15 may be authorized to perform certain functions of 

16 an immigration officer; and 

17 (2) desires such officers or employees to receive 

18 training for the Department of Homeland Security 

19 in relation to such functions, including border secu20 rity and immigration enforcement functions. 

21 (d) EXPENSES.—The expenses described in this sub22 section are actual and necessary expenses incurred by the 

23 section by the State or political subdivision in order to per24 mit the training described in subsection (c)(2) to take 

25 place, including expenses such as the following: 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 5528 IH

1 (1) Costs of travel and transportation to loca2 tions where training is provided, including mileage 

3 and related allowances for the use of a privately 

4 owned automobile. 

5 (2) Subsistence consisting of lodging, meals, 

6 and other necessary expenses for the personal suste7 nance and comfort of a person required to travel 

8 away from their person’s regular post of duty in 

9 order to participate in the training. 

10 (3) A per diem allowance paid instead of actual 

11 expenses for subsistence and fees or tips to porters 

12 and stewards. 

13 (4) Costs of securing temporary replacements 

14 for personnel traveling to, and participating in, the 

15 training. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7617

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DWAYNE RAMON SMITH,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. Hiram H. Ward, Senior

District Judge. (CR-89-105-G, CA-96-296-2)

Submitted: February 27, 1997 Decided: March 13, 1997

Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dwayne Ramon Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin H. White, Jr.,

Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-

132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district

court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate

judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of

the district court. United States v. Smith, Nos. CR-89-105-G; CA96-296-2 (M.D.N.C. Oct. 4, 1996). 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
#### James L. BROOKS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Roy A. CASTRO, Warden; et al., Respondents—Appellees.

No. 02-55753.

D.C. No. CV-00-13146-CAS.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 23, 2005.*

Decided April 13, 2005.

Lisa M. Bassis, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.

James L. Brooks, Susanville, CA, Deborah J. Chuang, Office of Attorney General of California, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.

Before B. FLETCHER, TROTT, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner James L. Brooks appeals the district court’s judgment dismissing as time-barred his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging his conviction for burglary and grand theft of a vehicle. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, we review de novo, and affirm.

Brooks contends that the district court erred by not informing him of the stay and abey procedure before it dismissed his section 2254 habeas petition without prejudice. Brooks’ contention is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s ruling in *Pliler v. Ford,*542 U.S. 225, 124 S.Ct. 2441, 2446, 159 L.Ed.2d 338 (2004) (stating that district courts are not required to inform petitioners of stay and abey procedures before dismissing habeas petitions).

To the extent Brooks contends that he is entitled to equitable tolling due to the district court’s action, this contention is also foreclosed. *See id.*(“District judges have no obligation to act as counsel or paralegal to *pro se*litigants.”)

The Clerk is directed to file the appellant’s motion and brief received on October 27, 2004. We construe the brief as a reply brief.

AFFIRMED.

**

 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.
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 18

- 00218

- CV

J ACQUETTA L OMOSI

, Appellant

V

.

W OODFAM M ANG

, Appellee §

§

§

§ On Appeal from County Court at

Law No. 1

of Tarrant County (2018

- 003129

- 1)

March 21, 2019

Opinion by Justice B irdwell

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that the

appeal should be dismissed. We vacate the trial court’s judgment and dismiss the

appeal as moot.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Wade Birdwell

Justice Wade Birdwell
EXHIBIT 32.2 

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

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

 

The undersigned, John W. Swatek, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of Hanover Direct, Inc. (the “Company”),  hereby certifies that to his knowledge the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 of the Company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the period specified. 

 

Signed at the City of Weehawken, in the State of New Jersey, this 31st day of March, 2006. 

 

/s/ John W. Swatek

John W. Swatek

Senior Vice President,

Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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
                                                                      ----------

                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 on Form 10-Q of Jaclyn, Inc.
(the "Company") for the fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2007 (the "Report"),
the undersigned each hereby certifies 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.

Dated: May 15, 2007                    /s/ ROBERT CHESTNOV
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Robert Chestnov, President
                                       (Chief Executive Officer)


Dated: May 15, 2007                    /s/ ANTHONY CHRISTON
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Anthony Christon, Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Jaclyn, Inc. and will be retained by Jaclyn, Inc. and forwarded to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


                                       29
Exhibit 10.41
 AMENDMENT
TO
2005 STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT
 th
 RECITALS
      Amendment
 Method of Payment
 (a)
    
    in cash or its equivalent denominated in U.S. dollars; or(b)
    
    in connection with any exercise occurring in anticipation of a
complete redemption by ICF of the Shares subject to the Option, by having the
notice of exercise direct that the certificate for the number of Shares
issuable upon such exercise (after having given effect to withholding tax
obligations) be delivered to the Corporate Governance Manager and Policy
Coordinator of




---



##### 



ICFs ultimate parent company, Irwin Financial Corporation, to be held in
trust for the benefit of the Option Holder, as shareholder, pending his
receipt of the proceeds of such redemption net of the Exercise Price,
whereupon such certificate shall be cancelled on the stock ledger of ICF and
thereafter be of no force or effect.
 Limited Effect
 Governing Law
 Counterparts
  2




---



##### 



th
 IRWIN COMMERCIAL FINANCE CORPORATIONBy:
    
    /s/ William I. MillerIts:
    
    Chairman/s/ Joseph R. LaLeggiaJOSEPH R. LaLEGGIA
 3
EXHIBIT 21
SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


The Significant subsidiaries of Sears, Roebuck and Co., the
names under which such subsidiaries do business, and the
states or countries in which each was organized, were as
follows as of January 1, 2000:



Names					                                   	Place of Organization

Consolidated Subsidiaries:
Sears Canada Inc.					                               Canada
  Sears Acceptance Company Inc.                    		Canada
Sears Logistics Services, Inc.			                    Delaware
Sears National Bank				                             	United States
SRFG, Inc.						                                    	Delaware
Sears Roebuck Acceptance Corp.			                    Delaware
95 other companies					                              Various


	The Company owns 20% to 50% of the outstanding voting
securities of 37 companies, which are accounted for on the
equity method.

The Company has investments in a number of other
corporations representing substantial percentages (but not
more than 20 percent) of their outstanding capital stock.
The Company disclaims control of any such companies.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5341 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 630
111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5341

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 26, 2010

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

                           September 29, 2010

              Reported by Mr. Lieberman, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 100 Orndorf Drive in Brighton, Michigan, as the ``Joyce Rogers Post 
                           Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. JOYCE ROGERS POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 100 Orndorf Drive in Brighton, Michigan, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Joyce Rogers Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Joyce 
Rogers Post Office Building''.
                                                       Calendar No. 630

111th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 5341

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 100 Orndorf Drive in Brighton, Michigan, as the ``Joyce Rogers Post 
                           Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           September 29, 2010

                       Reported without amendment
```
NO. 07-03-0463-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL B

JUNE 30, 2004

______________________________

IN THE INTEREST OF L.L., T.Y. AND D.C., CHILDREN

_________________________________

FROM THE 140TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

NO. 2002-517,011; HONORABLE JIM BOB DARNELL, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before JOHNSON, C.J., and QUINN and CAMPBELL, JJ.

ORDER ON ABATEMENT AND REMAND

On October 23, 2003, the appellate clerk received and filed a copy of a notice of

appeal from appellant Twila Young. The notice sought to appeal from an order signed on

August 29, 2003. Young did not pay the appellate filing fee. This court abated the appeal

pending payment of the filing fee and determination of appellate jurisdiction. 

Subsequently, the reporter’s record of a jury trial in August 2003, a clerk’s record,

and a motion by Young have been filed. Young has not paid either the appellate filing fee

or the fee due for filing of her motion. We note in the clerk’s record an order by the district
-2-

court determining that she is indigent and a subsequent order by the associate judge

presiding over the August 2003, jury trial determining that she is not indigent. 

Based on the record before us at this time, we determine that Young’s notice of

appeal is sufficient to invoke appellate jurisdiction over her appeal. 

Accordingly, pursuant to Young’s motion, this matter is abated and the cause is

remanded to the trial court. TEX. R. APP. P. 2. Upon remand, the judge of the trial court is

directed to immediately cause notice to be given of and to conduct a hearing to determine:

(1) whether appellant desires to prosecute this appeal; (2) if appellant desires to prosecute

this appeal, then whether appellant is indigent; (3) if appellant is indigent and desires to

prosecute this appeal, whether appellant’s present counsel should continue to represent

her pursuant to the court’s prior order appointing counsel; and (4) what orders, if any,

should be entered to assure the filing of appropriate notices and documentation to dismiss

appellant’s appeal if appellant does not desire to prosecute this appeal. 

The trial court is directed to: (1) conduct any necessary hearings; (2) make and file

appropriate findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendations, and cause them to

be included in a supplemental clerk’s record; (3) cause the hearing proceedings, if any, to

be transcribed and included in a supplemental reporter’s record; (4) cause the records of

the proceedings to be sent to this court; and (5) make and enter any orders appropriate to

clarify appellant’s status as indigent or non-indigent, and the status of appellant’s appointed

counsel. 
-3-

In the absence of a request for extension of time from the trial court, the

supplemental clerk’s record, supplemental reporter’s record, and any additional proceeding

records, including any orders, findings, conclusions and recommendations, are to be sent

so as to be received by the clerk of this court not later than July 28, 2004. 

Per Curiam
1 The Honorable Beverly Stites Jones, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, 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. 01-1818

___________ Lingi Anderson, * * Appellant, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Whirlpool Corporation, * Eastern District of Arkansas. * Appellee. * [UNPUBLISHED]

___________ Submitted: October 4, 2001 Filed: October 16, 2001

___________ Before McMILLIAN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Lingi Anderson appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in her lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq . We have carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ submissions on appeal. For the reasons stated by the district court, we conclude that-2- Ms. Anderson’s charge of discrimination was untimely filed, seeShempert v. Harwick Chem. Corp. , 151 F.3d 793, 796 n.3 (8th Cir. 1998) (noting Arkansas plaintiff had 180 days to file charge with Equal Employment Opportunity Commission), cert. denied , 525 U.S. 1139 (1999), and that the circumstances did not justify equitable tolling of the filing period, see Dring v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. , 58 F.3d 1323, 1328-29 (8th Cir. 1995) (EEOC f iling period should be tolled only when plaintiff is unable to obtain vital information bearing on existence of her claim; question is whether reasonable person in plaintiff’s situation would have been expected to know of existence of possible unlawful discrimination); Heideman v. PFL, Inc. , 904 F.2d 1262, 1266 (8th Cir. 1990) (“Equitable tolling is appropriate only when the circumstances that cause a plaintiff to miss a filing deadline are out of his hands.”), cert. denied , 498 U.S. 1026 (1991). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

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

 

 In connection with thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q of Earle M. Jorgensen Company (“EMJ”) for theperiod ended September 29, 2003 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Maurice S. Nelson, Jr., asChief Executive Officer of EMJ, and I, William S. Johnson, as Chief FinancialOfficer of EMJ, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)          ThisReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)          Informationcontained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of EMJ as of and for the periodscovered in this report.

 
| Date:  November 13, 2003                             |
|----------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                           |
|                                                           |
| /s/ Maurice S. Nelson, Jr.                                     |   |
| Maurice S. Nelson, Jr.                                         |
| President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Operating Officer |
|                                                           |
|                                                           |
| **/s/ William S. Johnson**                                     |   |
| William S. Johnson                                             |
| Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary          |
|                                                                |  |  |

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906, or another document authenticating, acknowledging orotherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within theelectronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, hasbeen provided to Earle M. Jorgensen Company and will be retained by Earle M.Jorgensen Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission orits Staff upon request. The foregoing certification is accompanying the Form10-Q solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of title 18 UnitedStates Code and is not being filed as a part of the Form 10-Q or as a separatedisclosure document.

 

----
#### STATE v. PENLEY

No. 103 PC.

Case below: 6 N.C. App. 455.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 6 January 1970.