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

<ARTICLE>                            5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
the Consolidated Balance Sheets as of November 30, 1996 (Unaudited) and the
Consolidated Statement of Operations for the Three Months ended November
30, 1996 (Unaudited) and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.

</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    AUG-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                       SEP-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                         NOV-30-1996
<CASH>                               1,548,159
<SECURITIES>                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                        4,631,374
<ALLOWANCES>                            37,397
<INVENTORY>                          4,669,635
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    11,185,760
<PP&E>                               3,955,307
<DEPRECIATION>                       1,387,946
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      15,972,767
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                2,390,008
<BONDS>                                      0
<COMMON>                             1,586,894
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0
<PREFERRED>                                163
<OTHER-SE>                          11,848,791
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        15,972,767
<SALES>                              7,556,692
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     7,556,692
<CGS>                                5,400,841
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        5,400,841
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     1,750,328
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      48,844
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        363,142
<INCOME-TAX>                           (90,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    453,142
<DISCONTINUED>                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0
<CHANGES>                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                           453,142
<EPS-PRIMARY>                              .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                              .03
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>



                                                                    Exhibit 32.1


           Certification of the President and Chief Executive Officer
            and Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer
                       Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
      As adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned
President and Chief Executive Officer and Vice President of Finance and Chief
Financial Officer of INTERMET Corporation (the "Company"), hereby certify, based
on our knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the
quarter ended June 30, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                    /s/ Gary F. Ruff
                                    -------------------------------------
                                    Gary F. Ruff
                                    President and Chief Executive Officer
                                    (Principal Executive Officer)

                                    /s/ Robert E. Belts
                                    -------------------------------------
                                    Robert E. Belts
                                    Vice President of Finance and
                                    Chief Financial Officer
                                    (Principal Financial Officer)

                                    Date: August 13, 2003
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 96-7847 DAVID ELLIS, a/k/a Tree, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CR-91-14, CA-96-725-5-F) Submitted: July 2, 1998 Decided: July 20, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________ Dismissed in part and remanded in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL David Ellis, Appellant Pro Se. Fenita Morris Shepard, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: David Ellis appeals the district court's order to the extent it denied his claims that counsel was ineffective for not requesting a downward departure for his allegedly minor role in the conspiracy and for notobjecting to his criminal history calculation. To the extent that the district court denied Appellant's § 2255 motion as to his claim that counsel was ineffective for not requesting a downward departure for his allegedly minor role in the conspiracy, we have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. United States v. Ellis , Nos. CR-91-14; CA-96-725-5-F (E.D.N.C. Nov. 20, 1996). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability on thisissue and dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning of the district court. Next, Ellis claims that the district court erred in not addressing his claim that counsel was ineffective for not objecting to his criminalhistory calculation. We find that the district court did not make a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel on this issue. Accordingly, we grant a certificate of appealability and remand the case for a finding on this issue and for further proceedings as required. We dispensewith 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 IN PART; REMANDED IN PART
2
Order entered March 3, 2020 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-01330-CV 

IN RE BILLY JOE CAMPBELL, Relator 

Original Proceeding from the 416th Judicial District Court 

Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 416-81619-2012 

ORDER 

Before Justices Bridges, Osborne, and Carlyle 

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS this original proceeding. 

/s/ DAVID L. BRIDGES 

 JUSTICE
**Exhibit 35.2**

** **

**WASHINGTON MUTUAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORP.**

** **

**OFFICER’S CERTIFICATEANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE**

 

            I, Barbara Campbell, an authorized officer of Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp. (the “AdministrativeAgent”), do hereby certify to WaMu Asset Acceptance Corp. (the “Depositor”) and Washington Mutual Bank (the “Servicer”), pursuant to the Amended and Restated Administrative Agent Agreement dated as of February 1, 2005 (the“Servicing Agreement”) by and between Washington Mutual Bank, as servicer, and the Administrative Agent the following with respect to WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2006-AR19 for the 2006 fiscal year (the “RelevantYear”):

 

1.        A review of the activities of the Servicer during the Relevant Year and of performance under the ServicingAgreement has been made under my supervision.

2.        To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under theServicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the Relevant Year.

 

Dated as of February 22, 2007.

 
|  

__/s/ Barbara Campbell________________

Name:  Barbara Campbell

Title:    First Vice President |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
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 Applied DNA Sciences,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending  December 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Rob
Hutchison,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the  Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and

          (2)  The information  contained in the Report fairly presents,  in (2)
               all material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and result of
               operations of the Company.

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

Date:  February 15, 2005                    By: /s/ ROB HUTCHISON
                                                ------------------
                                                Rob Hutchison
                                                Chief Executive Officer
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-QSB of Applied DNA
Sciences, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended June 30, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Gerhard H. Wehr, 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; 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/ Gerhard H. Wehr
                                     Gerhard H. Wehr
                               Chief Financial Officer
Date: August 14, 2003
4/1/2019 - 4/30/2019

EXPENSE CATEGORY AMOUNT

Airfare $ 96,932.46 

Lodging 210,734.47 

Meals 23,465.65 

Ground Transportation 32,252.11 

Computer Supplies / Support 64.93 

Other 140.00 

Postage/Messenger/Courier 57.35 

Phone - Internet Access 123.82 

TOTAL EXPENSES $ 363,770.79 

Exhibit C

AP SERVICES, LLC

Sumary of Expenses - Pacific Gas and Electric Company, et al.

For the Period April 1, 2019 - April 30, 2019

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2587-3 Filed: 06/18/19 Entered: 06/18/19 15:12:18 Page 1

of 1
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP

Paul H. Zumbro (pro hac vice)

(pzumbro@cravath.com)

Kevin J. Orsini (pro hac vice)

(korsini@cravath.com)

Omid H. Nasab (pro hac vice)

(onasab@cravath.com)

Worldwide Plaza

825 Eighth Avenue

New York, NY 10019

Tel: 212 474 1000

Fax: 212 474 3700

KELLER & BENVENUTTI LLP

Tobias S. Keller (#151445)

(tkeller@kellerbenvenutti.com)

Jane Kim (#298192)

(jkim@kellerbenvenutti.com)

650 California Street, Suite 1900

San Francisco, CA 94108

Tel: 415 496 6723

Fax: 650 636 9251

Attorneys for Debtors 

and Debtors in Possession

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

In re:

PG&E CORPORATION,

- and –

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 

COMPANY,

Debtors.

 Affects PG&E Corporation

 Affects Pacific Gas and Electric Company

 Affects both Debtors

* All papers shall be filed in the Lead Case 

No. 19-30088 (DM).

Bankruptcy Case 

No. 19-30088 (DM)

Chapter 11

(Lead Case) (Jointly Administered)

NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF THE

DEBTORS’ APPLICATION PURSUANT TO 

11 U.S.C. § 327(a) AND FED. R. BANKR. P. 

2014(a) AND 2016 FOR AUTHORITY TO 

RETAIN AND EMPLOY COMPASS 

LEXECON, LLC AS ECONOMIC 

CONSULTANTS TO THE DEBTORS NUNC 

PRO TUNC TO PETITION DATE

Re: Dkt. No. 1756

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2250 Filed: 05/28/19 Entered: 05/28/19 16:09:05 Page 1 of

2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that PG&E Corporation (“PG&E Corp.”) and 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company (the “Utility”), as debtors and debtors in possession 

(collectively, “PG&E” or the “Debtors”) in the above-captioned chapter 11 cases (the 

“Chapter 11 Cases”), filed their application (the “Application”) on April 29, 2019 for 

authority to retain and employ Compass Lexecon, LLC (“Compass”) pursuant to section 

327(a) of title 11 of the United States Code and Rules 2014(a) and 2016 of the Federal

Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, as economic consultants for the Debtors effective as of 

the Petition Date; filed a Supplement to the Application on May 3, 2019; and filed their 

Supplemental Statement regarding their Application (together with the Application and 

the Supplement to the Application, the “Final Supplemented Application”) on May 17,

2019. 

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that, consistent with the Court’s 

statements at the May 22, 2019 Omnibus Hearing concerning the Debtors’ Final 

Supplemented Application, the Debtors hereby withdraw their Final Supplemented 

Application. 

Dated: May 28, 2019

CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP

KELLER & BENVENUTTI LLP

By: /s/ Jane Kim_________________

Jane Kim

Attorneys for Debtors

and Debtors in Possession

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2250 Filed: 05/28/19 Entered: 05/28/19 16:09:05 Page 2 of

2
#### Aloses K. Glines v. The Supreme Sitting Order of the Iron Hall.

— Order affirmed, with costs. Opinion

*Per Curiam.*
EXHIBIT 31.2

       CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF SUMMIT BANCSHARES, INC.

           This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and accompanies the quarterly report on Form 10-Q
(the "Form 10-Q") for the quarter ended September 30, 2003 of Summit Bancshares,
Inc. (the "Issuer").

I, Bob G. Scott, the Executive Vice President, Chief Operating Officer, and
Chief Financial Officer of the Issuer certify that:

     (i)  the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
          section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (U.S.C. 78m(a) or
          78o(d)); and

     (ii) the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Issuer.

Dated: November 1, 2003

                                            /s/ Bob G. Scott
                                            ------------------------------------
                                     Name:  Bob G. Scott
                                     Title: Executive Vice President and COO/CFO

Subscribed and sworn to before me on this 1st day of November, 2003.

                                            /s/ Karen S. Appel
                                            ------------------------------------
                                     Name: Karen S. Appel
                                     Title: Notary Public

My commission expires: August 5, 2006



                                       43
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2283 Filed: 05/30/19 Entered: 05/30/19 15:08:04 Page 1 of

4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2283 Filed: 05/30/19 Entered: 05/30/19 15:08:04 Page 2 of

4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2283 Filed: 05/30/19 Entered: 05/30/19 15:08:04 Page 3 of

4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2283 Filed: 05/30/19 Entered: 05/30/19 15:08:04 Page 4 of

4
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-30289 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. BENNIE RAY CAIN, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 95-CR-50047

_________________________________________________________________ April 11, 1997 Before KING, JOLLY, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Bennie Cain appeals his conviction and sentence for possessing a firearm as a convicted felon. His claim that he is entitled to reversal on grounds that this conviction is legally inconsistent with his acquittal of having made false statements to obtain the firearm has no merit. See United States v. Parks , 68 F.3d 860, 865 (5th Cir. 1995), cert. denied , 116 S. Ct 825 (1996). Nor is there any merit to Cain’s contention that he is2

entitled to reversal on grounds of entrapment by estoppel. See United States v. Trevino-Martinez , 86 F.3d 65,69 (5th Cir. 1996), cert. denied , 1997 WL 85480 (Mar. 3, 1997); United States v. Calverley , 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994)(en banc)(plain error), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 1266 (1995). Cain’s claim that the district court should have granted him a downward departure in sentencing him, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0, p.s., will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See United States v. Flanagan , 87 F.3d 121, 125 (5th Cir. 1996); United States v. DiMarco , 46 F.3d 476, 477-78 (5th Cir. 1995). JUDGMENT AFFIRMED IN PART; APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

TAHER ACHAGZAI, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BROADCASTING BOARD OF 

GOVERNORS,

Defendant.

Civil Action No. 14-768 (RDM)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

On March 18, 2016, this Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting 

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on all counts for four of the five plaintiffs in this case 

and for all but four counts as to the fifth plaintiff. See Dkt. 52. The Court concluded that 

plaintiffs had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies for those counts and that equitable 

tolling of the exhaustion deadlines was not warranted. Id. Plaintiffs now ask this Court to 

reconsider that decision. See Dkt. 57. They characterize their motion as arising under Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b). Dkt. 57 at 1. Because the Court denied summary 

judgment in part, however, its decision was not a final judgment, and the Court will instead 

assume the motion invokes Rule 54(b), which provides that nonfinal orders “that adjudicates 

fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties . . . may be 

revised at any time before” the Court enters final judgment. 

Reconsideration of interlocutory orders is permitted “‘as justice requires.’” Cobell v. 

Jewell, 802 F.3d 12, 25 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (quoting Greene v. Union Mutual Life Ins. Co. of 

America, 764 F.2d 19, 22 (1st Cir. 1985) (Breyer, J.)). Courts in this District have recognized 
2

that relief under 54(e) is appropriate “when the movant demonstrates: ‘(1) an intervening change 

in the law; (2) the discovery of new evidence not previously available; or (3) a clear error in the 

first order.’” Murphy v. Exec. Office for U.S. Attorneys, 11 F. Supp. 3d 7, 8 (D.D.C. 2014)

(quoting Zeigler v. Potter, 555 F.Supp.2d 126, 129 (D.D.C. 2008)); see also Keystone Tobacco 

Co. v. U.S. Tobacco Co., 217 F.R.D. 235, 237 (D.D.C. 2003)).

Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration does not show that any of these circumstances—or 

any other circumstances that might justify reconsideration—are present here. The motion largely 

rehashes arguments Plaintiffs made in their motion in opposition to summary judgment, see Dkt. 

33, their motion for a preliminary injunction, see Dkt. 41, and their supplemental memorandum 

on summary judgment, see Dkt. 50. Despite multiple opportunities, Plaintiffs have failed to 

provide any evidence showing that they brought to the attention of an Equal Employment 

Opportunity Officer “an act contributing to” their hostile work environment claims that 

“occur[red] within the filing period.” Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 117 

(2002). They have likewise failed to produce any evidence that Defendants engaged in the sort 

of “affirmative misconduct” that would justify equitable tolling of the administrative deadlines 

for any of their claims. Baldwin Cty. Welcome Ctr. v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147, 151 (1984) (per 

curiam).

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration, Dkt. 57, is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Randolph D. Moss 

 RANDOLPH D. MOSS 

 United States District Judge 

Date: May 9, 2016
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 475 Engrossed in House (EH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 475

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to include vaccines against 
     seasonal influenza within the definition of taxable vaccines.

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

SECTION 1. ADDITION OF VACCINES AGAINST SEASONAL INFLUENZA TO LIST OF 
              TAXABLE VACCINES.

    (a) In General.--Subparagraph (N) of section 4132(a)(1) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting ``or any other 
vaccine against seasonal influenza'' before the period.
    (b) Effective Date.--
            (1) Sales, etc.--The amendment made by this section shall 
        apply to sales and uses on or after the later of--
                    (A) the first day of the first month which begins 
                more than 4 weeks after the date of the enactment of 
                this Act, or
                    (B) the date on which the Secretary of Health and 
                Human Services lists any vaccine against seasonal 
                influenza (other than any vaccine against seasonal 
                influenza listed by the Secretary prior to the date of 
                the enactment of this Act) for purposes of compensation 
                for any vaccine-related injury or death through the 
                Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund.
            (2) Deliveries.--For purposes of paragraph (1) and section 
        4131 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, in the case of sales 
        on or before the effective date described in such paragraph for 
        which delivery is made after such date, the delivery date shall 
        be considered the sale date.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 18, 2013.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
113th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 475

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to include vaccines against 
     seasonal influenza within the definition of taxable vaccines.
```