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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1998
<CASH>                                             352
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,123
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    109,921
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               115,188
<PP&E>                                          90,770
<DEPRECIATION>                                  51,836
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 154,430
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           61,934
<BONDS>                                         44,124
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,830
<OTHER-SE>                                      35,798
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   154,430
<SALES>                                        215,484
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               215,484
<CGS>                                          139,178
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  139,178
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,549
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (308)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (589)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                281
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       281
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.05
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lloyd Benjamin JOHNSON, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-40662.

Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 15, 2003.

Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Lloyd Benjamin Johnson, Jr., appeals his jury conviction for three counts of transporting illegal aliens within the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324. Johnson argues that the district court committed reversible error by questioning *375him and other witnesses in a manner which deprived him of a fair trial. Although Johnson cites in his statement of facts several instances of the judge’s questioning of various witnesses, he argues that the most egregious interventions occurred during the questioning of Javier Perez-Rangel, who was one of the illegal aliens in Johnson’s trailer, and of Johnson himself.

Johnson concedes that, because he did not object to the court’s questions, review of the issue is limited to plain error. *See United States v. Saenz,*134 F.3d 697, 701 (5th Cir.1998); *United States v. Calverley,*37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir.1994) (en banc). We have reviewed the trial court’s actions in light of the entire record, including the court’s curative instructions, and have determined that Johnson has not demonstrated *plain error. See Calverley,*37 F.3d at 162-64. Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
#### William H. GAUTREAUX, Jr., Plaintiff and Appellee, v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant.*

No. 14517.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

April 10, 1933.

Lemle, Moreno & Lemle, of New Orleans, R. V. Fletcher, of Chicago, Ill., and Charles N. Burch, H. D. Minor, and Clinton H. McKay, all of Memphis, Tenn., for appellant.

James G. Schillin, of New Orleans, for ap-pellee.

JANVIER, Judge.

IVilliam H. Gautreaux, Jr., plaintiff, was a guest passenger in an automobile truck which collided with the center supporting pier of an overhead railroad crossing near Harahan, La., and sued to recover from the defendant for. the personal injuries arising therefrom.

In the matter of Prank J. Becker v. Illinois Central Railroad Company, 147 So. 378, de*384cided by us to-day, we discussed at length the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto, and in the matter of Frank J. Abadie v. Texas & New Orleans Railroad Company, 147 So. 384, also decided this day, we held that whether there was contributory negligence of the persons riding in the automobile truck was' of no importance, since there could be no recovery in any event.

In the district court, judgment was rendered herein in plaintiff’s favor for $1,250.

For the reasons given in the two cases mentioned, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment appealed from be, and it is, annulled, avoided, and reversed, and that plaintiff’s suit be dismissed, at his cost.

Reversed.

For the reasons given in Frank J. Becker v. Illinois Central R. R. Co., 147 So. 378, decided this day:

WESTERFIELD, J., dissents.

HIGGINS, J., concurs.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-6859

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

WILLIE JUNIOR MCCAIN, 

 Defendant – Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior 

District Judge. (4:05-cr-00011-jlk-1; 7:07-cv-00301-jlk-mfu) 

Submitted: October 22, 2008 Decided: November 5, 2008 

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Willie Junior McCain, Appellant Pro Se. Charlene Day, OFFICE OF 

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Julie C. Dudley, Assistant United 

States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Willie Junior McCain seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. 

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) 

(2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this 

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find 

that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district 

court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural 

ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. MillerEl v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 

529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th 

Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and 

conclude that McCain has not made the requisite showing. 

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. 

DISMISSED
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-1975

FRANK DAVID HILL, Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
LIGHTMOTIVE FAT MAN, INCORPORATED; TRANSAMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, District Judge. (CA-97-165-F) Submitted: August 27, 1998 Decided: September 11, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frank David Hill, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Whitlowe Ellis, NeilAlvin Riemann, SMITH, HELMS, MULLIS & MOORE, Raleigh, North Carolina; Kimberly Quade Cacheris, Jill Quattlebaum Byrum, Kevin D. Elliott, MORRIS, YORK, WILLIAMS, SRULES & BREARLEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant filed an untimely notice of appeal of the final order in his civil action. We dismiss the appeal of this order for lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing notices of appeal are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods are “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). Parties to civil actions have thirty days withinwhich to file in the district court notices of appeal from judgments or final orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The only exceptions to the appeal period are when the district court extends the time to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). The district court entered its final order on April 7, 1998; Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed on June 22, 1998, which is beyond the thirty-day appeal period. Appellant’s failure to note a timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period leavesthis court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Appellant’s appeal. We therefore dismiss the appeal of the final order. The appeal of the denial of Appellant’s motion to reconsideris timely. The district court correctly denied the motion, construed as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 motion, because Appellant only reargued the merits of his appeal and did not raise any ground3meriting Rule 60 relief. We therefore affirm the denial of Appellant’s motion for reconsideration. 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.

DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


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 Midas Medici Group Holdings, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Nana Baffour, Chief Executive 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.











Date:
      November 23, 2009
            By:
            /s/
      Nana BaffourNana
      Baffour
              Chief
      Executive Officer (Principal Executive
Officer)
#### Alton Grain Company v. J. Henry Norton.

Bill for an Injunction.—Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Arthur H. Chetlain, Judge presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1902.

Reversed in part and affirmed in part.

Opinion filed January 8, 1903.

James E. M unroe, attorney for appellant.

Ouster, Goddard & Griffin, attorneys for appellee.

Mr. Presiding Justice Ball

delivered the opinion of the court.

The injunctional decree rendered herein is reversed, in so far as it enjoins the defendant, the Alton Grain Company, from preferring any charges against the complainant, J. Henry Norton, before the directors of said board of trade for failure upon his part to carry out the terms of his contract for the delivery of contract or standard oats to the said defendant during the month of July, 1902, and from preferring any charges against the said J. Henry Norton before the board of directors of the board of trade for the purpose of disciplining him, or in anywise calling him to account for his failure or alleged failure to carry out the terms of said contract for the delivery of contract or standard oats to the defendant during the month of J uly, 1902.

The remainder of said injunctional order is hereby affirmed.,

■ The decision of this case, in so far as the interlocutory *386decree is affirmed, is controlled by the opinion filed in Bank of Montreal v. Waite, *supra.*

Mr. Justice Adams :

I concur in the decision, except in so far as it reverses part of the order of the Superior Court.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 791 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 791

 To deny supplemental security income benefits by reason of disability 
                based on addiction to alcohol or drugs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 2, 1995

   Mr. Allard (for himself, Mr. Bartlett of Maryland, Mr. Burton of 
 Indiana, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Dornan, Mr. Gilchrest, Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. 
  Heineman, Mr. Metcalf, Mr. Ewing, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. Schiff, Mr. 
  Stump, Mrs. Vucanovich, and Mr. Gene Green of Texas) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To deny supplemental security income benefits by reason of disability 
                based on addiction to alcohol or drugs.

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

SECTION 1. DENIAL OF SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME BENEFITS BY REASON OF 
              DISABILITY BASED ON ADDICTION TO ALCOHOL OR DRUGS.

    (a) In General.--Section 1614(a)(3) of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 1382c(a)(3)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(I) An individual shall not be considered to be disabled for 
purposes of this title if (but for this subparagraph) alcoholism or 
drug addiction would be a contributing factor material to the 
Commissioner's determination that the individual is disabled.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1611(e) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
1382(e)) is amended by striking paragraph (3).
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The
Board of Directors
FGX International Holdings Limited:

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements Nos. 333-157940 and 333-148083 on Form S-8 and
Nos. 333-151896 and 333-157184 on Form S-3 of FGX International Holdings Limited of our reports dated March 8, 2010, with respect to the
consolidated balance sheets of FGX International Holdings Limited as of January 2, 2010 and January 3, 2009, and the related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' equity
(deficit) and comprehensive income, and cash flows for the fiscal years ended January 2, 2010, January 3, 2009 and December 29, 2007, and the related financial statement schedule,
and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of January 2, 2010, which reports appear in the January 2, 2010 annual report on Form 10-K of FGX
International Holdings Limited.

Providence, Rhode Island
March 8, 2010

/s/ KPMG LLP


---



QuickLinks
18419.

#### SAPP *et al. v.*CALLAWAY *et al.*

Submitted November 10, 1953

Decided January 11, 1954.

*Sharpe & Layne, M. W. Eason,*for plaintiffs in error.

*C. L. Coivart,*contra.

Head, Justice.

For a statement of the pleadings and issues in this case, see *Sapp*v. *Callaway,*208 *Ga.*805 (69 S. E. 2d 734). A retrial of the cause resulted in a verdict for the defendants. The plaintiffs' motion for new trial as amended was denied, and the exception is to that judgment.

In special grounds 4, 6, and 7, error is assigned on the rulings of the court in permitting certain witnesses for the defendants to testify as to conversations had with Clyde Holland, over objections timely and appropriately made. The statements alleged to have been made by Holland related to a settlement of the controversy between the parties. These statements do not fall within any exception to the “hearsay rule.” The testimony of the witnesses as to their conversations with Holland was of such an injurious and harmful nature as to require the grant of a new trial.

In ground 5, error is assigned on the admission of the testimony of T. C. Hendrix, over timely and appropriate objections, to the effect that the faction of the church to which he belonged (the prevailing faction by the verdict of the jury) had consistently adhered to the faith, doctrines, practices, and decorum of the church, and that the majority faction had departed therefrom. Generally, the civil courts will look to the decisions of the constituted tribunals of a church in determining whether or not there may have been an abandonment of the faith, doctrines, practices, and decorum of a church. *Mack*v. *Kime,*129 *Ga.*1 (58 S. E. 184). The admission of this testimony was error.

The extracts from the charge of the court attacked in grounds 8, 9, 10, and 11 were not erroneous for any reason assigned. The charge fairly and impartially presented to the jury the issues in the cause, and the exception as to the alleged failure to charge set out in ground 12 is without merit.

*278
      *Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Duck-worth, C. J., not participating.*
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6166 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6166

    To amend title 49, United States Code, to treat the District of 
  Columbia as a State for purposes of certain grant programs, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 7, 2021

  Ms. Norton introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To amend title 49, United States Code, to treat the District of 
  Columbia as a State for purposes of certain grant programs, and for 
                            other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``District of Columbia Transportation 
Funding Equality Act''.

SEC. 2. APPORTIONMENTS BASED ON GROWING STATES AND HIGH DENSITY STATES 
              FORMULA FACTORS.

    Section 5340(a) of title 49, United States Code, is amended by 
inserting ``and the District of Columbia'' after ``United States''.

SEC. 3. FORMULA GRANTS FOR BUSES.

    Section 5339(a)(1) of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (B) by inserting ``and the District of 
        Columbia'' after ``United States''; and
            (2) in subparagraph (C) by striking ``the District of 
        Columbia,''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Buster Edwards v. State.

No. 24529.

December 7, 1949.

*57No attorney for appellant of record on appeal.

*George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

KRUEGER, Judge.

The offense is theft of cattle, and the punishment assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of two years.

There are no bills of exceptions in the record complaining of the admission or exclusion of any evidence; nor are there any objections to the court’s charge. Consequently, the only question presented for review is the sufficiency of the evidence.

The state’s evidence, briefly stated, shows that on or about the 10th day of April, 1949, Edgar Aikin missed two Hereford cows. These cows were seen at Paris, Texas, on the following day in a truck driven by appellant and Joe Harvey Batty. Appellant and Batty sold the cows to David Alston for the sum of $135., who on the same day sold them to a Mr. Gibson for $150. These cows were subsequently located in Mr. Gibson’s feed lot; and were identified and recovered by Aikin. On the 2nd day of May, 1949, appellant, after he had been given the statutory warning, made a voluntary confession to the county attorney. In this confession, which was introduced in evidence, he admitted that he and Batty stole the cattle in question. It will be noted that appellant’s confession together with the testimony of other witnesses is ample to sustain his conviction.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6218 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6218

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 317 Blattner Drive in Avon, Minnesota, as the ``W.O.C. Kort Miller 
                       Plantenberg Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 9, 2021

  Mr. Emmer (for himself, Mr. Hagedorn, Ms. Craig, Mr. Phillips, Ms. 
  McCollum, Ms. Omar, Mrs. Fischbach, and Mr. Stauber) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and 
                                 Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 317 Blattner Drive in Avon, Minnesota, as the ``W.O.C. Kort Miller 
                       Plantenberg Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. W.O.C. KORT MILLER PLANTENBERG POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 317 Blattner Drive in Avon, Minnesota, shall be known and 
designated as the ``W.O.C. Kort Miller Plantenberg Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``W.O.C. 
Kort Miller Plantenberg Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
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


      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  the  undersigned  President  and  Chief  Executive
Officer of the Company certifies that, to his knowledge:

      1.    The Company's  Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 (the
            "Report")  fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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



                                     /s/ David Weissberg, M.D.
                                     ------------------------------------
                                     David Weissberg, M.D.
                                     Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
                                     Dated: June 9, 2006