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


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                              32
<SECURITIES>                                       819
<RECEIVABLES>                                      114
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,056
<PP&E>                                             215
<DEPRECIATION>                                     125
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   5,013
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              431
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        892
<COMMON>                                         6,319
<OTHER-SE>                                      (2,629)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     5,013
<SALES>                                          3,644
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,810
<CGS>                                            3,823
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,823
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   6
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     18
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 18
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        18
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01
        


</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 Glance, Inc. (the "Company") on  Form
10-QSB for the period ended  March 31, 2008, as  filed with  the Securities  and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned,  in  the
capacities and on  the  dates  indicated  below,  hereby  certifies  pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

1.     The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
       of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


Date:  May 8, 2008

/s/ Moneca Rayner
---------------------------
Moneca Rayner
President, Chief Executive
Officer, and Director
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-60415

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE HOMERO SALINAS,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:96-CV-141-Br

- - - - - - - - - -

March 9, 1999

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Homero Salinas (Salinas), federal prisoner #56742-079,

pleaded guilty to using and carrying a firearm during a drug

trafficking crime, and aiding and abetting in the using and

carrying of a firearm during a drug trafficking crime. 21 U.S.C.

§ 924(c)(1); 18 U.S.C. § 2. 

Salinas appeals the denial of a motion to vacate conviction

and sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. On appeal Salinas

argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in the 
No. 98-60415

-2-

course of his guilty plea. He also argues that the district

court should have granted him an evidentiary hearing. Finally,

Salinas contends that he is innocent of the crime to which he

pleaded guilty in light of the Supreme Court’s holding in Bailey

v. United States, 516 U.S. 137 (1995), which redefined the “use”

prong under § 924(c)(1).

This court reviews the district court’s factual findings for

clear error and the district court’s conclusions of law de novo.

United States v. Gobert, 139 F.3d 436, 437 (5th Cir. 1998).

We have reviewed the record and Salinas’ brief and AFFIRM

the district court’s dismissal for essentially the same reasons

set forth by the district court. United States v. Salinas,

No. 1:96-CV-141-Br (S.D. Miss. June 4, 1998). 

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 2, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 34377]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16862]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 679

[Docket No. 960129018-6018-01; I.D. 062196A]


Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska; Northern 
Rockfish in the Western Regulatory Area

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Modification of a closure.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS is opening directed fishing for northern rockfish in the 
Western Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action is 
necessary to use the total allowable catch (TAC) for northern rockfish 
in this area.

EFFECTIVE DATE: 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), July 1, 1996, 
until 2400 hrs, A.l.t., December 31, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Furuness, 907-586-7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive 
economic zone is managed by NMFS according to the Fishery Management 
Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North 
Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson 
Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Fishing by U.S. vessels is 
governed by regulations implementing the FMP at Subpart H of 50 CFR 
part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
    The annual TAC for northern rockfish in the Western Regulatory Area 
was established by the Final 1996 Harvest Specifications of Groundfish 
(61 FR 4304, February 5, 1996) as 640 metric tons (mt). See 
Sec. 679.20(c)(3)(ii). The Final 1996 Harvest Specifications of 
Groundfish also closed the directed fishery for northern rockfish in 
the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA. See 679.20(d)(1).
    The Director, Alaska Region, NMFS, has determined that the 1996 TAC 
for northern rockfish in the Western Regulatory Area has not been 
reached. Therefore, NMFS is terminating the previous closure and is 
opening directed fishing for northern rockfish in the Western 
Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska.
    All other closures remain in full force and effect.

Classification

    This action is taken under 50 CFR 679.20 and is exempt from review 
under E.O. 12866.

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: June 26, 1996.
Richard W. Surdi,
Acting Director, Office of Fisheries Conservation and Management, 
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 96-16862 Filed 6-27-96; 2:46 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
EX-10.7.1



 Exhibit 10.7.1 

 
 



 
 December 30, 2013 
 The Board of Directors 
 TV18 HSN Holdings Limited 

10, Diomidous Street 
 Alphamega Akropolis
Building, 
 3rd Floor, Office 401, 2024 Nicosia 
 Cyprus 
 Dear Sirs, 
 We, Network18 Media & Investments Limited (as the majority shareholder of TV18 HSN Holdings Limited), hereby irrevocably agree that in the event that TV18 HSN Holdings Limited (‘the
Company”) fails to arrange the required finances, shall directly provide to TV18 Home Shopping Network Limited (subsidiary of the Company), such financial support as is necessary to enable TV18 Home Shopping Network Limited to fulfil all its
obligations incurred up to and including 30 September, 2014 to enable it to continue as a going concern until such time period. 
 In addition,
we shall also ensure that TV18 HSN Holdings Limited does not undertake any such activities of its own which could prevent it from continuing as a going concern up to and including 30 September, 2014. 

Yours faithfully, 
 For Network18 Media &
Investments Limited 
 /s/ R D S Bawa 

R D S Bawa 
 Group CFO 

 
  

Network18 Media & Investments Limited 
 Corp. Office : Express Trade Tower, Plot No. 15-16, Sector-16A, Noida, Uttar Pradesh - 201301, India 
 T +91 120 434 1818, 398 7777  F +91 120 432 4107  W www.network18online.com 
 Regd. Office : 503, 504 & 507, 5th Floor, “Mercantile House”, 15, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi -110 001, India
**EXHIBIT 32.1**
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 1 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**
     I, Andrew B. Shearer, Chief Financial Officer of the IndustrialDistribution Group, Inc. (the “Company”), certify,pursuant to 1 U.S.C. sec. 1350 as adopted by sec. 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
(1)     the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual    period ended December 31, 2004 (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 result of    operations of the Company.
Dated: March 11, 2005
     /s/ Andrew B. Shearer      Andrew B. Shearer     President and     Chief Executive Officer
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RASHEEN D. FAIRLY,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 08-56180

D.C. No. 2:08-cv-03471-JVS-RZ

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 16, 2010** 

San Francisco, California

Before: HUG, BEEZER and HALL, Circuit Judges.

Prisoner Rasheen D. Fairly appeals pro se from the district court’s denial of

his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his 1996 jury

conviction resulting in a mandatory life sentence. We review de novo the district

FILED

APR 05 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

court’s application of collateral estoppel. McQuillion v. Schwarzenegger, 369 F.3d

1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2004). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291,

and we affirm. 

The facts of this case are known to the parties. We do not repeat them.

Collateral estoppel prevents parties from relitigating issues that were

adjudicated in a previous dispute between the same parties. Clark v. Bear Stearns

& Co., Inc., 966 F.2d 1318, 1320 (9th Cir. 1992). Collateral estoppel applies when

“(1) the issue at stake [is] identical to the one alleged in the prior litigation; (2) the

issue [was] actually litigated in the prior litigation; and (3) the determination of the

issue in the prior litigation [was] a critical and necessary part of the judgment in

the action.” Id.

Collateral estoppel prevents Fairly from relitigating the issue of whether he

may file a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition under the “escape hatch” of 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 

See Stephens v. Herrera, 464 F.3d 895, 897 (9th Cir. 2006) (describing the

application of § 2255’s “escape hatch”). First, Fairly litigated a previous § 2241

petition against the United States in the Central District of California in 2006. 

Second, in that action, the parties litigated the issue of whether Fairly could

collaterally attack his 1990 conviction in a § 2241 petition for a writ of habeas

corpus under the “escape hatch” of § 2255. Third, the district court decided that
3

Fairly could not bring a § 2241 petition because he did not qualify for the § 2255

“escape hatch.” Further, Fairly had nearly identical habeas corpus arguments

heard in 2008.

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 148 (Thursday, July 31, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 44719]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-17495]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13226-000]


Blue Heron Hydro, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application 
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comment, Motions To Intervene, and 
Competing Applications

July 24, 2008.
    On May 8, 2008, Blue Heron Hydro, LLC filed an application, 
pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing to study 
the feasibility of the Ball Mountain Dam Hydroelectric Project, which 
would be located near the town of Jamaica on the West River at the 
existing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Ball Mountain Dam and Reservoir 
in Windham County, Vermont. The proposed project would utilize federal 
lands.
    The proposed Ball Mountain Dam Hydroelectric Project would utilize 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Ball Mountain Dam and would consist of 
the following new facilities: (1) An 80-foot-long, 11.5-foot-wide steel 
penstock, (2) a powerhouse containing 3 generating units with a total 
installed capacity of 3.7 MW, (3) a 2,500-foot-long, 12.5 kV 
underground transmission line, connecting to an existing power line; 
and (4) appurtenant facilities. The project would have an annual 
generation of 12.1 gigawatts-hours, which would be sold to a local 
utility.
    Applicant Contact: Ms. Lori Barg, Blue Heron Hydro, LLC, 113 
Bartlett Rd., Plainfield, VT 05667; phone: (802) 454-8458. FERC 
Contact: Tom Papsidero, (202) 502-6002.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing 
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file 
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. 
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing 
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site 
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically, 
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight 
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For 
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to 
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or 
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-
13226) in the docket number field to access the document. For 
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-17495 Filed 7-30-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Exhibit
32.2




CERTIFICATION




In
connection with the periodic report of Premier Power Renewable Energy, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Teresa Kelley, Chief
Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) of the Company, hereby certify
as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350
of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:




(1)
      The Report fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods
indicated.





Date:
      August 14, 2009
                /s/
      Teresa KelleyTeresa
      KelleyChief
      Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF CHINA GREEN CREATIVE, INC. PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO § 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of China Green Creative, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Deng Lin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, based on my knowledge, 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/ Deng Lin Deng Lin Chief Financial Officer May 24, 2010 This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 91-8 Filed 03/14/11 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 2388
2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 91-8 Filed 03/14/11 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 2389
2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 91-8 Filed 03/14/11 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 2390
2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 91-8 Filed 03/14/11 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 2391
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3583

To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide, with respect to research

on breast cancer, for the increased involvement of advocates in decision

making at the National Cancer Institute.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 5, 1996

Mrs. LOWEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Commerce

A BILL

To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide, with

respect to research on breast cancer, for the increased

involvement of advocates in decision making at the National Cancer Institute.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Consumer Involvement

5 in Breast Cancer Research Act’’.
2

•HR 3583 IH

1 SEC. 2. INCREASED INVOLVEMENT OF ADVOCATES IN DECI2 SION MAKING REGARDING RESEARCH ON

3 BREAST CANCER.

4 Section 417(c) of the Public Health Service Act (42

5 U.S.C. 285a–6(c)) is amended by adding at the end the

6 following paragraph:

7 ‘‘(3) INVOLVEMENT OF ADVOCATES IN DECI8 SION MAKING.—

9 ‘‘(A) The Director of the Institute shall, to

10 the extent practicable, provide for the increased

11 involvement (relative to fiscal year 1996) of ad12 vocates in decision making at the Institute re13 garding research on breast cancer.

14 ‘‘(B) For purposes of this paragraph, the

15 term ‘advocate’ means an individual who is ac16 countable to, represents, and reports back to

17 organizations that represent those affected by

18 breast cancer.

19 ‘‘(C) The Director of the Institute shall

20 prepare a report on the manner in which sub21 paragraph (A) has been carried out. The report

22 shall be included in the first report under sec23 tion 407 that the Director submits after the ex24 piration of the one-year period beginning on the
3

•HR 3583 IH

1 date of the enactment of the Consumer Involve2 ment in Breast Cancer Research Act.’’.

Æ
* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is

not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,

and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value

consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

December 23, 2009

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

SEDRICK LATROY MCKINNEY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

PAUL LAIRD, Associate Warden;

LEON EGGLESTON, Lieutenant;

STEVEN HANSEN, Officer,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 09-1189

(D.C. No. 1:02-CV-00490-RPM-CBS)

(D. Colo.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before KELLY, PORFILIO, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.

Sedrick Latroy McKinney, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the

dismissal of his civil rights lawsuit for failure to prosecute and the denial of his

motion for reconsideration. The dismissal came seven years into the action, after

the second time that Mr. McKinney caused his court-appointed attorneys to
1 The first attorney withdrew at Mr. McKinney’s request two weeks before

the trial set for April 3, 2007. The attorneys who were later appointed withdrew

one month before the trial set for January 12, 2009, on the ground that

Mr. McKinney made the representation unreasonably difficult.

-2-

withdraw just before trial.1 On appeal, Mr. McKinney argues that he was

prepared to proceed to trial pro se and that he so informed the district court. Our

review of the record, however, indicates that he also informed the district court

that he would “not be able to prosecute his case with assurance and effectively,”

without calling two expert witnesses who had not previously participated in the

case. R., Vol. 2 at 529-30; see also Aplt. Br. at 17-20 (repeating need for

witnesses). Thus, the district court did not err in concluding that Mr. McKinney

was not prepared to proceed to trial and that he had failed to prosecute his action. 

It follows that it was not an abuse of discretion for the court to deny the motion

for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b). 

The appellees’ motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is DENIED. 

Mr. McKinney’s motion to proceed without prepayment of fees is DENIED, and

the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED for substantially the reasons

stated in the district court’s Order for Dismissal dated March 23, 2009.

Entered for the Court

John C. Porfilio

Circuit Judge