alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|   | (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:      December 29, 2010 | /s/      Bennet P. Tchaikovsky                   |
|------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|
|                         | Bennet      P. Tchaikovsky                       |
|                         | Chief      Financial Officer                     |
|                         | (Principal      Financial and AccountingOfficer) |

----
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 1**  **0 -**  **6523**

DAVID EUGENE GREGG, SR. ,
P etitioner

– Appell ant ,

v.
NFN MCCALL , Respondent

– Appell ee .

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Sou th Carolina , at Florence

. G. Ross Anderson , Jr., Senior D istrict Judge. ( 4 : 08

- c v - 0 3423

- GRA )

Submitted : June 24 , 2010 Decided: July 1, 2010

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, a nd DAVIS , Circuit Judges.

Dismiss e d by un published per curiam opinion

.

David Eu gene Gregg, Sr., Appellant Pro Se

. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, James Anthony Mabry, Assistant Attorney General , Columbia , South Carolina , for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURI AM: David Eugene Gregg, Sr., seeks to appeal the district

court ’ s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp.
2010)

. The magistrate judge recommended th at relief be denied and advised Gregg that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. The timely filing of specific objec tions to a magistrate judge ’ s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845

- 46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Gregg has waived appellate review by failing to file timely objection s after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.
DISMISSE D
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

          - [File No. 500-1] 

It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of Global Diamond Exchange, Inc. (“Global Diamond”) because there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning its securities. Questions have arisen concerning the company's current business operations, control of the company, and the company's reliance on Rule 504 of Regulation D of the Securities Act of 1933 in conducting a distribution of its securities. Global Diamond, a company that has made no public filings with the Commission, is quoted on the Pink Sheets under the ticker symbol GBDX. 

The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above-listed company. 

Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the above-listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT, July 31, 2008, through 11:59 p.m. EDT, on August 13, 2008. 

By the Commission. 

Florence E. Harmon, 

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. E8-17896 Filed 7-31-08; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

GRAHAM CREATIVE SALES, USA, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 09-CV-10719-DT

MAURELL PRODUCTS, INC.,

Defendant.

/

ORDER STAYING PROCEEDINGS PENDING SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS AND

SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

On May 12, 2009, the court held a conference with counsel representing the

parties in the above-captioned matter. During the conference, the parties presented the

court with a unified timeline and plan under which to conduct settlement negotiations. 

The plan contemplates that the parties will diligently work toward settlement within the

next month. The court is satisfied that the parties will use this time productively. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that all formal proceedings in this matter are STAYED pending

settlement negotiations between the parties in accordance with the proposed schedule

that was presented to the court. The parties are instructed to notify the court

immediately if they have reached a complete resolution to this matter or if their

negotiations have halted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the court will conduct a settlement conference,

with party representatives, on June 12, 2009 at 9:30 a.m. Counsel is specifically

warned that if the parties or counsel does not appear at the conference, the court will

likely impose monetary sanctions.

2:09-cv-10719-RHC-RSW Doc # 17 Filed 05/12/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 71
S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C3 ORDERS\09-10719.GRAHAM.Stay.wpd

2

The court will cancel the conference if presented with a stipulation and proposed

order of dismissal by June 9, 2009.

 S/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: May 12, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

on this date, May 12, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

2:09-cv-10719-RHC-RSW Doc # 17 Filed 05/12/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 72
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 this Quarterly Report of
Western Graphite Inc. (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2015 (the “Report”),
as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Mark Corrao, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: May 15, 2015



/s/ Mark Corrao

Mark Corrao

Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer)
<PAGE>


EXHIBIT NO. 11


                        ROTARY POWER INTERNATIONAL, INC.
                  COMPUTATION OF INCOME (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                             Twelve Months Ended December 31,
                                                            ---------------------------------
BASIC                                                           1999                  1998
                                                            -----------           -----------
<S>                                                         <C>                   <C>
Shares outstanding, beginning of period                       6,112,855             5,968,516

Weighted average number of shares issued,  retired
and issuable share equivalents                                   66,667               (72,170)

Weighted  average  number  of  common  and  common
equivalent shares outstanding                                 6,179,522             6,040,686
                                                            -----------           -----------
                                                            -----------           -----------

Net loss                                                    $  (378,326)          $(1,510,252)
                                                            -----------           -----------
                                                            -----------           -----------

Net loss per common share                                   $     (0.06)          $     (0.25)
                                                            -----------           -----------
                                                            -----------           -----------
DILUTED

Weighted  average  number  of  common  and
common equivalent shares  outstanding as
adjusted to full dilution                                     6,987,855             6,047,886
                                                            -----------           -----------
                                                            -----------           -----------

Net loss                                                    $  (378,326)          $(1,510,252)
                                                            -----------           -----------
                                                            -----------           -----------

Net loss per common share                                   $     (0.05)*         $     (0.25)*
                                                            -----------           -----------
                                                            -----------           -----------

</TABLE>


----------

*    These calculations are submitted in accordance with SEC requirements,
     although they are not in accordance with APB Opinion No. 15 because they
     are anti-dilutive
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS LISTED IN THE INDEX ON PAGE F-1 INCLUDED IN
THE 1997 FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1997
<CASH>                                           9,343
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   90,707
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,431
<INVENTORY>                                    135,071
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               295,114
<PP&E>                                         197,760
<DEPRECIATION>                                  53,801
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 592,658
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          189,719
<BONDS>                                        267,755
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           160
<OTHER-SE>                                      24,838
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   592,658
<SALES>                                        741,138
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               741,138
<CGS>                                          449,333
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  449,333
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,815
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              35,670
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    107
<INCOME-TAX>                                    10,389
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (11,323)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (11,323)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.71)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.71)
        

</TABLE>
#### Steven Ray CANIDA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 6-90-115-CR.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Texarkana.

March 3, 1993.

Barney Sawyer, Paris, for appellant.

Tom Wells, Dist. Atty. of Lamar County, Paris, for appellee.

Before CORNELIUS, C.J., and BLEIL and GRANT, JJ.

OPINION

BLEIL, Justice.

This case is now before us on remand from the court of criminal appeals. Previously, we affirmed the conviction, holding, among other things, that a Department of Public Safety chemist could testify from laboratory records that another chemist had tested a substance delivered to the DPS laboratory and found it to be marihuana. Ca*nida v. State,*823 S.W.2d 382, 383 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1992). After our decision, the court of criminal appeals finally decided that a chemist’s report, like the one in this case, is barred from admissibility under Tex.R.CRIM.Evid. 803(8)(B) because it contains matters observed by law enforce*920ment personnel. *Cole v. State,*839 S.W.2d 798, 806 (Tex.Crim.App.1990).1 Furthermore, it was held that the reports should not be allowed in evidence under Tex. R.CRIm.Evid. 803(6) as a business record. *Cole v. State,*839 S.W.2d at 806.

This appeal was remanded to us for our consideration in light of the opinion in *Cole. Canida v. State,*842 S.W.2d 293 (Tex.Crim.App.1992). Under *Cole,*we erred in holding that the laboratory report showing the substance to be marihuana was admissible. Under *Cole,*chemist Juan Ortiz should not have been allowed to testify based on records that the substance was marihuana. Thus, the trial court erred in admitting the testimony. We now turn to whether this error requires reversal.

When we find error in the proceedings of the court below, the error is reversible unless we determine beyond a reasonable doubt that the error made no contribution to the conviction or to the punishment. *Harris v. State,*790 S.W.2d 568, 584 (Tex.Crim.App.1989); Tex.R.App.P. 81(b)(2). At trial, evidence that the substance in question was marihuana was unchallenged. Other than the chemist’s testimony, two different witnesses testified without objection that the substance that Canida delivered was definitely marihuana. No evidence tended to show that the substance was not marihuana. Under these circumstances, we hold that, beyond a reasonable doubt, the error in allowing Ortiz to testify based on laboratory records that the examined substance was marihuana made no contribution to the conviction or to the punishment.

Thus, upon reconsideration of this appeal, we affirm the judgment of conviction.

1

. Although this is a 1990 decision, the decision was not final until the opinion on motion for rehearing was issued in October of 1992. *Cole v. State,*839 S.W.2d 798 (Tex.Crim.App.1990).
---

CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Richard W. Donaldson, the Principal Executive Officer and
Principal Financial Officer of Pengram Corporation (the Company), hereby
certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

| | (i)  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company, for the
      fiscal quarter ended May 31, 2008, and to which this certification is
      attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Report) fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934, as amended; and
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |      |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       
| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                                      



| | By:    | /s/ Richard W. Donaldson       
| | ------ | -------------------------------
| |        |                                
| | Name:  | RICHARD W. DONALDSON           
| |        |                                
| | Title: | Principal Executive Officer and
| |        | Principal Financial Officer    
| |        |                                
| | Date:  | July 15, 2008                  





A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company
and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it
relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is
not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the
Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made
before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.

---
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1



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




In connection with the Amendment No. 3 to Annual Report of CPC of America, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Rod A. Shipman, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my 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.




June 5, 2006                                   /s/ Rod A. Shipman
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Rod A. Shipman,
                                                Chief Executive Officer and
                                                Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit
32.1








CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 0F 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Across America Real Estate Exchange,
Inc. (the Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended herein as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I. Brian L. Klemsz, Chief
Executive and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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 fully presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations or the Company.














Dated:
      November 20, 2009
            ACROSS
      AMERICA REAL ESTATE EXCHANGE, INC.,By:
      /s/ Brian L.
KlemszChief
      Executive OfficerChief
      Financial Officer
#### Susan Carol FISLER, Movant, v. KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION, Respondent.

No. 91-SC-131-KB.

Supreme Court of Kentucky.

March 24, 1994.

ORDER SETTING ASIDE ORDER OF REINSTATEMENT

The Motion of the Character and Fitness Committee to set aside the Order conditionally reinstating movant to the Kentucky Bar Association is hereby granted.

The original movant in this action, Susan Carol Fisler, was suspended from the practice of law in the Commonwealth of Kentucky in February of 1986. She filed an application for reinstatement on January 31, 1991. Before the granting of that Order, Fisler was reviewed by the Character and Fitness Committee of the Kentucky Board of Bar Examiners. During her hearing before the Committee, Fisler admitted to having written several checks which were returned for insufficient funds. She assured the Committee that this would not happen again. Upon such reassurances, the motion for reinstatement was granted on September 15, 1992. Reinstatement was conditional subject to the requirements of SCR 3.510.

Following the entry of that Order, during which time Fisler was in the process of completing the requirements necessary to regain admittance, she again issued several checks which were dishonored. The Character and *873Fitness Committee now requests that the Order reinstating Fisler to membership in the Kentucky Bar Association be set aside.

Agreeing with the Committee that Fisler’s behavior represents a violation of the criminal laws of the Commonwealth and is evidence of a lack of the character and fitness required for membership in the Bar, it is now the Order of the Supreme Court that the Order of September 15, 1992, be set aside and the suspension of Susan Carol Fisler be reinstated.

All concur.

STEPHENS, C.J., not sitting.

ENTERED: March 24, 1994.

/s/ Charles M. Leibson Deputy Chief Justice