alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| 1. | The Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| DATE:  September 13, 2010 | By:  /s/ John Long                                              |
|-------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                | John LongChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)                                                                                                                                                                                                      |
|                                |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               |
|                                |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               |
| DATE:  September 13, 2010 | By:  /s/ John Long                                         |
|                                |  Acting Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)                                                                                                                                                                                                  |
Case 1:07-cv-03363-GBD     Document 34      Filed 07/10/2007     Page 1 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-03363-GBD     Document 34      Filed 07/10/2007     Page 2 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-03363-GBD     Document 34      Filed 07/10/2007     Page 3 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-03288-RPP Document 21 Filed 03/13/2008 Page 1 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-03288-RPP Document 21 Filed 03/13/2008 Page 2 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-03288-RPP Document 21 Filed 03/13/2008 Page 3 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-03288-RPP Document 21 Filed 03/13/2008 Page 4 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-03288-RPP Document 21 Filed 03/13/2008 Page 5 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-03288-RPP Document 21 Filed 03/13/2008 Page 6 of 6
#### STEWART v. STEWART

No. 130 PC.

Case below: 25 N.C. App. 628.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 26 June 1975.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

 :

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA :

 :

-v.- :

 : 07 Cr. 332

ROBERTO ANTONIO SANTIAGO-SERRATA, :

a/k/a “Roberto Santiago,” :

 :

Defendant. :

 :

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, ss:

MICHAEL M. ROSENSAFT, being duly sworn, deposes and

says that he is an Assistant United States Attorney in the Office

of Michael J. Garcia, United States Attorney for the Southern

District of New York; that he is in charge of the above-entitled

matter; that one ROBERTO ANTONIO SANTIAGO-SERRATA

(NYSID#0284191Z), a/k/a Roberto Santiago, now detained at the

George R. Vierno Center, 09-09 Hazen St., East Elmhurst, NY

11370, has been charged in an indictment with violating Title 8,

United States Code, Sections 1326(a) & (b)(1).

By this application, the Government seeks a writ of

habeas corpus ad prosequendum, so that ROBERTO ANTONIO SANTIAGOSERRATA, a/k/a Roberto Santiago, the defendant, can be brought

before this Court to be available for prosecution in the

Complaint captioned United States v. Roberto Antonio SantiagoSerrata, 07 Cr. 332. No previous application for similar relief

has been made.

Case 1:07-cr-00332-HB Document 3 Filed 05/08/2007 Page 1 of 2
WHEREFORE, your deponent respectfully prays that a writ

of habeas corpus ad prosequendum issue, directing the Warden of 

the George R. Vierno Center, the United States Marshal for the

Southern District of New York, or any other authorized law

enforcement officers, including but not limited to Deportation

Officer Kenneth Lopez of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, to

produce the above-named defendant to the custody of the Warden of

the Metropolitan Correctional Center or the person in charge

there, to be available for prosecution, as soon as the defendant

is available and no later than on or about May 25, 2007, and to

appear as necessary thereafter in that case until ROBERTO ANTONIO

SANTIAGO-SERRATA, a/k/a Roberto Santiago, shall have been

discharged or convicted and sentenced.

I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE FOREGOING

IS TRUE AND CORRECT, PURSUANT TO TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE,

SECTION 1746.

 /s/ Michael M. Rosensaft 

MICHAEL M. ROSENSAFT

Assistant United States Attorney

(212) 637-2366

Dated: May 3, 2007

New York, New York

Case 1:07-cr-00332-HB Document 3 Filed 05/08/2007 Page 2 of 2
2/14/2008 Hearing Transcript

 82emedtctp

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

2 --------------------------------------x

 2 MEDTECH PRODUCTS, INC.,

3 

 3 Plaintiff,

4 

 4 v. 07 Civ. 3302(KMK)(LMS)

5 

 5

6 RANIR, LLC and CVS PHARMACY, INC.,

 6

7 Defendants.

 7 --------------------------------------x

8 MEDTECH PRODUCTS, INC.,

 8 Plaintiff,

9 v.

10 DENTEK ORAL CARE, INC.,

11 Defendant.

11 --------------------------------------x

12 MEDTECH PRODUCTS, INC.,

12 Plaintiff,

13 v.

14 POWER PRODUCTS, INC., d/b/a SPLINTEK,

15 Defendant.

15 --------------------------------------x

16 

17 

18 United States Courthouse

18 White Plains, N.Y.

19 February 14, 2008

19

20 

21 

22 Before:

22 THE HONORABLE LISA MARGARET SMITH,

23 

23 Magistrate Judge

24 

25 *Proceedings recorded via electronic recording device.

1

Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 158-7 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 1 of 2
2/14/2008 Hearing Transcript

1 list trade secrets which it considers to be "merely

2 illustrative" on page five. I won't go through them in detail,

3 your Honor, but they all suffer from the same lack of

4 specificity and particularity that will jeopardize the scope of

5 relevance in discovery as well as the trade secret claims at

6 issue in this case.

7 MR. HELTON: If I could just reply briefly, your

8 Honor.

9 MR. CHENG: Thank you, your Honor.

10 THE COURT: Yes, Mr. Helton, go ahead.

11 MR. HELTON: As Mr. Cheng pointed out, we did identify

12 many paragraphs in our February 8th letter which are taken from

13 the complaint which we filed -- the second amended complaint

14 which we filed in this case and which discuss our trade

15 secrets. I have here a two-page list where I just made some

16 notations. And I won't repeat all of the paragraphs, but I

17 will say that we have probably -- we have a second amended

18 complaint that is 68 pages in length. The first 48 pages are

19 factual issues. It is in those 48 pages that we describe the

20 trade secrets that we have in this case. And we have done the

21 best that we could, based upon the knowledge that we have,

22 without any discovery, to plead the trade secrets that we think

23 are involved, again, without discovery, in this lawsuit. No

24 amount of discovery is going to illuminate those provisions of

25 the complaint as far as the motion to dismiss is concerned.

7

Case 7:07-cv-03302-KMK-LMS Document 158-7 Filed 06/19/2008 Page 2 of 2
#### STATE v. JOE B. DRIVER.

(Filed 20 May 1964.)

1. Criminal Daw § 134; Constitutional Daw § 36—

The legislature may require the courts to take into account in imposing punishment the persistence of an accused in a course of criminal conduct, and thus provide a more severe penalty for repeated violations by a person of the same statute.

2. Constitutional Daw § 36; Disorderly Conduct and Public Drunkenness—

A jail sentence of two years imposed upon a defendant convicted in Durham County of public drunkenness constituting a fifth offense within a twelve month period is authorized by G-.S. 14-335(12), and defendant’s contention that such sentence is cruel and unusual punishment in view of the fact that he is an admitted alcoholic is not tenable.

Appeal by defendant from *Mallard, J.,*January, 1964 Criminal Session, Durham Superior Court.

Criminal prosecution upon two charges of public drunkenness, each a fifth offense within a 12-months period. To each of the charges the defendant entered a plea of guilty. The defendant testified: “I am 58 years old and was first arrested for drunkenness at age 24. Since then I have spent two-thirds of my life on the roads for drinking. Yes sir, I consider myself an alcoholic. I want to do something about it but it don’t look like I can. For seven years I have been rated totally disabled.”

The court imposed a jail sentence of two years in each case, the sentences to run concurrently. The defendant appealed.

*T. W. Bruton, Attorney General, Harry W. McGalliard, Deputy Attorney General for the State.*

*Brannon ■& Read by Anthony M. Brannon for defendant appellant.*

Per Curiam.

The court - appointed counsel advanced this argument: “The present defendant is an alcoholic and this fact is acknowledged by all who have come into contact with him, from the arresting officer to the Court which sentenced him. This alcoholism, while not the reason for his imprisonment, is certainly the cause of it. His addiction has put him in jail. Yet he has not been assigned to a medical rehabilitation center but sent to the roads. As an impoverished inmate he cannot obtain outside medical aid. So for two years the State of North Carolina impounds the defendant, an acknowledgedly ill man, beyond the reach of medical and psychological treatment. Such imprisonment without treatment is certainly Cruel and Unusual Punishment.”

*93The sentences imposed are' authorized by G.S. 14-335(12), 1963 Cumulative Supplement, Yol. B-l. Undoubtedly, the Legislature may require the courts to take into account in fixing punishment the persistence of an accused in a course of criminal conduct. The prison authorities provide medical treatment for prisoners during their confinement. The argument of defense counsel in other matters addresses itself more properly to society and other agencies of government rather than to the criminal courts. The defendant’s motion in arrest of judgment is denied. Defendant’s attorney of record consents to the motion of the Attorney General suggesting diminution of the record. The motion is allowed.

No error.
#### STATE v. ALEXANDER

No. 58 PC.

Case below: 16 N.C. App. 95.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 8 November 1972.
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NOS.   2-04-047-CR

						2-04-048-CR

						2-04-049-CR

CHRYSTAL GALE SOTO	APPELLANT

	V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS	STATE

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

	FROM THE 97TH DISTRICT COURT OF MONTAGUE COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	Pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant Chrystal Gale Soto pleaded guilty to the offense of escape and to two destruction of evidence offenses.  A jury assessed Soto’s punishment at seven years’ confinement for escape and ten years’ confinement for each of the destruction of evidence offenses, and the trial court sentenced Soto accordingly.  In a single point, Soto claims that the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences for the offenses because the charges arose from a single criminal episode and were decided in a single criminal action.  See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 3.03(a) (Vernon 2003). 

	The State points out that Soto expressly waived her right to concurrent sentencing under penal code section 3.03 as part of her plea bargain agreement.  The record contains a document titled “Agreed Waivers,” indicating that in each case,

	The defendant further understands that the three offenses listed above, as part of this agreement, will be tried in one proceeding before a single jury and the defendant waives the application of Section 3.03, Texas Penal Code, to the assessment of punishment for the said offenses, understanding that the trial court in [its] discretion has the authority to order that the sentences for these offenses run concurrently or consecutively.

This document is signed by Soto and her attorney.  Likewise, the reporter’s record reflects the same waiver and agreement.  The trial court asked Soto’s attorney if he intended to file a written waiver of penal code section 3.03, and he responded, “Your Honor, we will do that.  It is our intent to waive 3.03.  And if the State desires that or if you feel it’s necessary, we will be more than happy to do that.” 

	Accordingly, we hold that Soto waived her right to complain of the imposition of consecutive sentences.  See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1; Ex parte McJunkins, 954 S.W.2d 39, 40-41 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (op. on reh’g) (recognizing that defendant may waive application of section 3.03).  We overrule Soto’s sole point and affirm the trial court’s judgments.

							PER CURIAM

PANEL F:	WALKER, HOLMAN, and GARDNER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: June 10, 2004
Case 1:06-cv-15123-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15123-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 2 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15123-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 3 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15123-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 4 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15123-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 5 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15123-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 6 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15123-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 7 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15123-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 8 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15123-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 9 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15123-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 10 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15123-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 11 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15123-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 12 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15123-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 13 of 13
#### STATE v. CHAVIS and STATE v. BULLARD and STATE v. BARTON and STATE v. OXENDINE

No. 154 PC.

Case below: 45 N.C. App. 438.

Petition by defendants for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 3 June 1980.
#### HAYMORE v. HAYMORE

No. 12 PC.

Case below: 37 N.C. App. 232.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 4 October 1978.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                          72,653
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,967
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,671
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                90,649
<PP&E>                                          16,854
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,274
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 127,368
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,298
<BONDS>                                            525
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            24
<OTHER-SE>                                     114,269
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   127,368
<SALES>                                         51,953
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                51,953
<CGS>                                           31,147
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   16,769
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                28,904
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 5,366
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 209
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (19,709)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         2
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (19,711)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (19,711)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.92)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.92)


</TABLE>
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 PrimeEnergy Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Charles E. Drimal, Jr., as Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Beverly A. Cummings, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, 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) 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/  Charles E. Drimal, Jr.

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

President

Chief Executive Officer/

November 12, 2004

 

/s/  Beverly A. Cummings

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

Executive Vice President

Chief Financial Officer

November 12, 2004
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 15-10 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 15-10 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-03259-HB Document 15-10 Filed 07/27/2007 Page 3 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

---------------------------------------------------------------------X 

OSSIE HAITH, 

Plaintiff,

-againstTHE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., 

Defendants.

---------------------------------------------------------------------X 

07 Civ. 3360 (GBD) 

PROOF OF SERVICE

ROSE M. WEBER, an attorney duly admitted to practice in the State of New 

York and this Court, declares under penalty of perjury and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 that the 

following statements are true. 

I am over 18 years of age and am not a party to this action. 

That on April 30, 2007, at 1:00 p.m., at the office of the Corporation Counsel of 

the City of New York, 100 Church Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10007, I served a Summons 

and Complaint upon the City of New York, defendant therein named, by delivering and leaving 

one true copy of the Summons and Complaint with Madelyn Santana personally. Declarant 

knew said individual to be authorized to accept service on behalf of defendant City of New York. 

Dated: New York, New York 

April 30, 2007 

By: /s 

Rose M. Weber (RW 0515) 

Case 1:07-cv-03360-GBD Document 2 Filed 04/30/2007 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.2




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 Katy Industries, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ending April 2, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James W. Shaffer, Chief Financial 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) 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/ James W. Shaffer


James W. Shaffer


Chief Financial Officer


May 13, 2010











The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany this report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.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 the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Case 1:07-cv-03399-JGK Document 1 Filed 04/30/2007 Page 1 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-03399-JGK Document 1 Filed 04/30/2007 Page 2 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-03399-JGK Document 1 Filed 04/30/2007 Page 3 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-03399-JGK Document 1 Filed 04/30/2007 Page 4 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-03399-JGK Document 1 Filed 04/30/2007 Page 5 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-03399-JGK Document 1 Filed 04/30/2007 Page 6 of 6
Case 1:07-cv-03437-RJS     Document 4      Filed 06/06/2007     Page 1 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-03437-RJS     Document 4      Filed 06/06/2007     Page 2 of 2
#### CROTTS v. PAWN SHOP

No. 95 PC.

Case below: 16 N.C. App. 392.

Petition for writ of certiorari, to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 5 December 1972.
Case 1:07-cv-03211-PKC Document 15 Filed 09/13/2007 Page 1 of 2Case 1:07-cv-03211-PKC Document 15 Filed 09/13/2007 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-03385-BSJ-KNF Document 4 Filed 05/08/2007 Page 1 of 1