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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-02-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-02-1998
<CASH>                                       4,681,000
<SECURITIES>                                52,105,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,594,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   225,000
<INVENTORY>                                    641,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            60,490,000
<PP&E>                                       5,010,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,397,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              69,276,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,619,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                   103,170,000
<OTHER-SE>                                (43,036,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                69,276,000
<SALES>                                      9,379,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,379,000
<CGS>                                        5,962,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,962,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            29,426,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             290,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (22,364,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (22,364,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (22,364,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.66)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.66)


</TABLE>
NO.  07-03-0339-CV

					        07-04-0041-CV	

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL D

	FEBRUARY 23, 2006

		______________________________

	REGINALD S. Y. LEE, APPELLANT

	V. 

	JUSTIN HERSEY, TRAVIS J. HERSEY AND

	THE FRANK J. HERSEY FAMILY TRUST, APPELLEES

	_________________________________

	FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY;

	NO. 01-15,925-P; HONORABLE DENNIS WATSON, JUDGE

	_______________________________

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION

	Appellant Reginald S.Y. Lee appeals two turnover orders issued by the trial court.1 The trial court’s Final Judgment Non Obstante Veredicto, which forms the basis of the turnover orders, is the subject of an appeal before this court in cause number 07-03- 00219-CV.  In light of this court’s February 23, 2006 opinion and judgment in that cause, we reverse the trial court’s turnover orders and vacate them in their entirety.      

							James T. Campbell

							         Justice
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           2,403
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,743
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,842)
<INVENTORY>                                     25,497
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                53,666
<PP&E>                                          57,331
<DEPRECIATION>                                (10,787)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 131,948
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           37,995
<BONDS>                                         56,738
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            71
<OTHER-SE>                                      16,177
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   131,948
<SALES>                                         56,364
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                56,364
<CGS>                                           41,648
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,720
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   672
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   789
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,439
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,096
<INCOME-TAX>                                       560
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                536
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       335
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.04
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2392 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2392

    To suspend temporarily the duty on (S)-6-chloro-3,4-dihydro-4-E-
       cyclopropylethynyl-4-trifluoromethyl-2(1H)-quinazolinone.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 11, 2000

   Mr. Roth introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To suspend temporarily the duty on (S)-6-chloro-3,4-dihydro-4-E-
       cyclopropylethynyl-4-trifluoromethyl-2(1H)-quinazolinone.

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

SECTION 1. (S)-6-CHLORO-3,4-DIHYDRO-4-E-CYCLOPROPYLETHYNYL-4-
              TRIFLUOROMETHYL-2(1H)-QUINAZOLINONE.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by striking heading 
9902.29.33 and inserting in numerical sequence the following new 
heading:

      

``    9902.29.33     (S)-6-chloro-    Free              No change         No change         On or before 12/
                     3,4-dihydro-4-E-                                                        31/2003          ''
                     cyclopropylethy                                                                           .
                     nyl-4-
                     trifluoromethyl-
                     2(1H)-
                     quinazolinone
                     (CAS No. 214287-
                     99-7) (provided
                     for in
                     subheading
                     2933.90.46)....

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

K.C.B., )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-1008

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed March 2, 2018.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for 

Hillsborough County; Barbara TwineThomas, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and 

Robert D. Rosen, Assistant Public 

Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

LaROSE, C.J., and KHOUZAM and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED October 4, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-20231 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus SHIRLEY THIBODEAUX, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:02-CR-541-1

-------------------- ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * This court affirmed the sentence of Shirley Thibodeaux. United States v. Thibodeaux , 115 Fed. Appx. 708 (5th Cir. Dec. 17, 2004)(unpublished). The Supreme Court vacated and remanded for further consideration in light of United States v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). We requested and received supplemental letter briefs addressing the impact of Booker
.No. 04-20231 -2- Thibodeaux argues that the district court’s application of sentencing guidelines adjustments based upon the amount of loss and victims involved and for means of identification used violated the Sixth Amendment. Thibodeaux concedes that her argument is raised for the first time on appeal and is reviewable for plain error only. See United States v. Mares , 402 F.3d 511, 520-21 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Mar. 31, 2005) (No. 04-9517). As Thibodeaux admits, the district court made no statements indicating that it would have imposed a lower sentence under an advisory guidelines regime. Accordingly, although the district court’s adjustments to Thibodeaux’s sentence constitute error that is plain, i.e., obvious, Thibodeaux cannot demonstrate that the error affected her substantial rights. See id. at 521-22. Thibodeaux correctly acknowledges that this court has rejected the argument that a Booker error is a structural error or that such error is presumed to be prejudicial. See United States v. Martinez-Lugo , 411 F.3d 597, 611 (5th Cir. 2005). She likewise concedes that our precedent forecloses her contention that application of Booker ’s remedial opinion to her violates the Ex Post Facto Clause. See United States v. Scroggins , 411 F.3d 572, 577 (5th Cir. 2005). She raises these arguments to preserve them for further review. Thibodeaux’s reliance on the plain error analysis set forth in United States v. Dazey , 403 F.3d 1147 (10th Cir. 2005), is unavailing in light of Mares
.No. 04-20231 -3- Because nothing in the Supreme Court’s Booker decision requires us to change our prior affirmance in this case, we reinstate our judgment affirming Thibodeaux’s conviction and
sentence.
#### In the Matter of Proving the Last Will and Testament of Hannah M. Schell, Deceased. Roy Wood, by Henry J. Crawford, His Special Guardian, Appellant; Jacob W. Beyer, as Executor, etc., of Hannah M. Schell, Deceased, Respondent.

Decree unanimously affirmed, with costs to the *900respondent executor and to the special guardian payable out of the estate.
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

I, John Mutch, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that except for
the failure to timely file the report, the Annual Report of Peregrine Systems, Inc. on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2004 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all
material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Peregrine Systems, Inc.

Date:
December 20, 2004

| |  | /s/JOHN MUTCHJohn Mutch
President and Chief Executive Officer
| |  | -------------------------------------------------------------

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Peregrine Systems, Inc. and will be retained by Peregrine Systems, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.

---



QuickLinks
v150341_10-792 -- Converted by SECPublisher 2.1.1.8, created by BCL Technologies Inc., for SEC Filing


     

    Exhibit
10.79.2
Item 1. N/A

Item 2.        Disposition of Assets

On May 2, 2002, Ricketts Enterprises International Inc, a subsidiary
of  REII Incorporated (the "Company") disposed of One (1) residential
building held for investment purposes.

        The total selling price of the one residential building
        is follows:

        1743 54 Street S.W. Golden Gate FL 34116      $ 93,500.00

                                                       ----------
        Gross Sales prices                            $ 93,500.00


       Cost of Sales Action                           $    366.00.
                                                       ----------
       Net Income from Sale                           $ 93,134.00

       The Historical value of this property as carried on the company's
 books was $ 90,000.00 thereby showing a net profit on this transaction of
 $3,134.00
 The income from this sale will be added to company's working capital.
**Exhibit 31.2**CERTIFICATIONI, Daniel T. Voelpel, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of First FranklinCorporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issueras of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this reportis being prepared;(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions aboutthe effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the smallbusiness issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small businessissuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, tothe small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small businessissuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting.   Date: May 12, 2006 /s/ Daniel T Voelpel                         Daniel T. Voelpel  Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
- 18 -
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit ____________ 

No. 23-20383 

Summary Calendar 

____________ 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee, 

versus

Marcelino Sanchez-Deleon, 

Defendant—Appellant. 

______________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 4:22-CR-572-1 

______________________________ 

Before King, Haynes, and Graves, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Marcelino 

Sanchez-Deleon has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in 

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States 

v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Sanchez-Deleon has not filed 

a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of 

_____________________ 

*

 This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

January 26, 2024 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 23-20383 Document: 00517046484 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/26/2024
No. 23-20383 

2 

the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the 

appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, 

counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused 

from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See

5th Cir. R. 42.2. 

Case: 23-20383 Document: 00517046484 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/26/2024
ex101.htm


    DECLARATION
OF TRUST

     

    I, Maurice Bidaux, hereby declare
that the mineral claims described below and which have been secured by me via an
option agreement with Bearclaw Capital Corp. (as Keyser Resources Inc. trustee)
are held by me in trust and for the benefit of Keyser Resources
Inc..

     

    Mineral
Claims:

     

    
      
        
          
            
              	
                      Tenure

                      Number

                    	
                      Claim

                      Name

                    	
                      Owner

                    	
                      Good
      To

                      Date

                    	
                      Status

                    	
                      Area

                    
	
                       

                      510210

                    	
                       

                      Rey
      Lake

                    	
                      Bearclaw
      Capital Corp. 100%

                    	
                      2016/06/09

                    	
                      GOOD

                    	
                       474.370

                    


            

          

        

      

    

    


    


    


    


    Dated the
11th  of
June, 2008

    


    


    


    /s/ Maurice
Bidaux

    Maurice
Bidaux
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF DEC-31-1997 AND THE RELATED STATEMENTS OF
INCOME AND CASH FLOWS FOR THE 12-MONTH PERIOD THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       7,135,427
<SECURITIES>                                63,602,195
<RECEIVABLES>                                  199,316
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            45,207,488
<PP&E>                                      27,307,508
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,012,562
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             232,559,749
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       19,598,667
<BONDS>                                    106,823,103
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        21,429
<OTHER-SE>                                  76,235,634
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               232,559,749
<SALES>                                        296,970
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,105,853
<CGS>                                          254,444
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               47,372,848
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          16,817,180<F1>
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (63,084,175)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (1,355,249)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (61,728,926)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (61,728,926)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (3.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.23)
<FN>
<F1>THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST EXPENSE HAS BEEN OFFSET BY INTEREST INCOME IN THE AMOUNT
OF $4,814,004
</FN>


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-10648

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

KENTRELL DAVIS, also known as “Zeal”,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:17-CR-264-9

Before DAVIS, JONES, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Kentrell Davis has moved for leave 

to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).

Davis has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us 

to make a fair evaluation of Davis’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 29, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-10648 Document: 00514813522 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/29/2019
No. 18-10648

2

we therefore decline to consider the claims without prejudice to collateral 

review. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record 

reflected therein, as well as Davis’s response. We concur with counsel’s 

assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 

Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused 

from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 

See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Davis’s motion for the appointment of new counsel is 

DENIED.

 Case: 18-10648 Document: 00514813522 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/29/2019