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

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-13-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-28-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-13-1997
<CASH>                                          22,119
<SECURITIES>                                     2,007
<RECEIVABLES>                                  147,007
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,154
<INVENTORY>                                      3,629
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               188,286
<PP&E>                                          45,722
<DEPRECIATION>                                  30,218
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 326,086
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          106,311
<BONDS>                                         35,759
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        75,048
<OTHER-SE>                                      58,884
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   326,086
<SALES>                                        451,257
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               451,257
<CGS>                                          397,524
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  397,524
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                43,004
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   290
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,579
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,860
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,164
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,696
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,696
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .37<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .36<F1>
<FN>
<F1>EARNINGS PER SHARE OF THE REGISTRANT HAVE BEEN RESTATED TO REFLECT A
THREE-FOR-TWO STOCK SPLIT DISTRIBUTED ON AUGUST 27, 1997 AND TO REFLECT THE
APPLICATION OF SFAS NO. 128, "EARNINGS PER SHARE."
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
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
 
 Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. §1350 (as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002), I, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of National Presto Industries,
Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of
the Company for the quarterly period ended April 4, 2010 (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.
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its
staff upon request.


Date:
      May 14, 2010
              By:
              /s/Randy
      LiebleRandy
      LiebleChief Financial
      Officer
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i at e f orpubl i c at i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane lunani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T PA BLO EN RI Q U E M A RIN RO J A S, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , Jr ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 71500 A ge nc yN o. A 099- 051- 138 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r atio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d June 29, 2010 ** B efo re: A L A R C Ó N , L E A V Y , an dG R A B E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P ab l o E n ri qu e M ari n R o j as, a n at i v e an dci t i zen o f M ex i co , p et i t i o n s p ro se for r evi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ order s um m ar i l y a ff i rm i ng an im m ig r a tio n ju d g e ’s ( “I J ” ) r e m o v a l o r d e r . W e h av e ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r8 U .S .C . 

# FI LED JU L 19 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 71500 2 § 1 2 5 2 . R e v ie w in g d e n o v o qu e s tio n s o f law , Ca s t i llo -Pe r ezv . I NS , 212 F . 3d 518, 5 2 3 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) , w e d e n yth e p e titio n f o rr e v ie w . T he I Jpr ope r l yc onc l ude d R oj a s w a s s t atut or i l yi ne l i gi bl e f orc anc e l l at i on of r e m o v a l b e c au s e h e la c k s aqu a lif y in g r e lativ e . See 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 b ( b ) ( 1 ) ( D ) ; se e a l s o Mo l i n a -Es tra da v . I

NS , 293 F . 3d 1089, 1093- 94 ( 9th C i r . 2002) ( de ny i ng cancel l at i on of re m ov alw here al i en l ac ked a qu al i fy i ng re l at i ve). R oj a s ’ r e m a i ni ng c ont e nt i ons ar e unava i l i ng. P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6973 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to clarify the conditions 

under which the Secretary of Health and Human Services can approve 

generic drug applications with labeling temporarily different than the 

brand name drug, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 8, 2022 

Mr. CARTER of Georgia introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to 

clarify the conditions under which the Secretary of 

Health and Human Services can approve generic drug 

applications with labeling temporarily different than the 

brand name drug, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Enhanced Access to 

5 Affordable Medicines Act of 2022’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6973 IH

1 SEC. 2. CLARIFYING THE CONDITIONS OF GENERIC DRUG 

2 APPLICATION APPROVAL FOR LAST-MINUTE 

3 BRAND NAME DRUG LABELING CHANGES. 

4 Section 505(j)(10)(A) of the Federal Food, Drug, 

5 and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(10)(A)) is amended 

6 by striking clauses (i) through (iv) and inserting the fol7 lowing: 

8 ‘‘(i) the application is otherwise eligible for ap9 proval under this subsection except that— 

10 ‘‘(I)(aa) the listed drug has an active pat11 ent, the listed drug has an active exclusivity pe12 riod, or there is a delay in approval as de13 scribed in paragraph (5)(B)(iii); and 

14 ‘‘(bb) a revision to the labeling of the listed 

15 drug has been approved by the Secretary within 

16 90 days of expiration of a patent, exclusivity 

17 period, or delay in approval referenced in item 

18 (aa); or 

19 ‘‘(II) a revision to the labeling of the listed 

20 drug has been approved by the Secretary, with21 in 90 days of when the application is otherwise 

22 eligible for approval under this subsection; 

23 ‘‘(ii) the sponsor of the application agrees to 

24 submit revised labeling for the drug that is the sub25 ject of the application not later than 60 days after 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6973 IH

1 approval under this subsection of the application; 

2 and 

3 ‘‘(iii) the labeling revision described under 

4 clause (i) does not include a change to the ‘Warn5 ings’ section of the labeling.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.7

        CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18
                            OF THE UNITED STATES CODE


      I, Thomas M. O'Flynn, Chief Financial Officer of PSEG Energy Holdings
L.L.C., to the best of my knowledge, certify that (i) the Quarterly Report of
PSEG Energy Holdings L.L.C. on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005
(the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of PSEG Energy Holdings L.L.C.


                                    /s/ Thomas M. O'Flynn
                                  -----------------------------------------
                                    THOMAS M. O'FLYNN
                                    PSEG Energy Holdings L.L.C.
                                    Chief Financial Officer
                                    October 28, 2005
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

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned
officers of Rand Capital Corporation (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

The Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2015 (the Form 10-Q) of the Company fully complies with the requirement of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in
the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                        |  |  |  |  |                                                          |                                                   
|----------------------- |  |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------
|Dated: November 3, 2015 |  |  |  |  |                                                          | /s/ Allen F.
Grum                                 
|                        |  |  |  |  |                                                          | Allen F. Grum, President
(Chief Executive Officer)
|                        |  |  | 
|Dated: November 3, 2015 |  |  |  |  |                                                          | /s/ Daniel P. Penberthy                           
|                        |  |  |  |  | Daniel P. Penberthy, Treasurer
(Chief Financial Officer)
|                        |  |
EXHIBIT 21.1

METALS USA HOLDINGS CORP.

SUBSIDIARIES



|                                       |  |             
|-------------------------------------- |  | ------------
|Entity Name                            |  | Juris of Org
|Flag Intermediate Holdings Corporation |  | Delaware    

FLAG INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS CORPORATION

SUBSIDIARIES



|                 |  |             
|---------------- |  | ------------
|Entity Name      |  | Juris of Org
|Metals USA, Inc. |  | Delaware    

METALS USA, INC.

SUBSIDIARIES



|                                                |  |             
|----------------------------------------------- |  | ------------
|Entity Name                                     |  | Juris of Org
|Allmet GP, Inc.                                 |  | Delaware    
|Allmet LP, Inc.                                 |  | Delaware    
|Interstate Steel Supply Co. of Maryland, Inc.   |  | Maryland    
|Intsel GP, Inc.                                 |  | Delaware    
|Intsel LP, Inc.                                 |  | Delaware    
|i-Solutions Direct, Inc.                        |  | Delaware    
|Jeffreys Real Estate Corporation                |  | Delaware    
|Jeffreys Steel Holdings, L.L.C.                 |  | Alabama     
|Levinson Steel GP, Inc.                         |  | Delaware    
|Levinson Steel LP, Inc.                         |  | Delaware    
|Metals Receivable Corporation                   |  | Delaware    
|Metals USA Building Products, L.P.              |  | Texas       
|Metals USA Building Products, Canada Inc.       |  | Ontario     
|Metals USA International Holdings, Inc.         |  | Delaware    
|Metals USA Carbon Flat Rolled, Inc.             |  | Ohio        
|Metals USA Contract Manufacturing, Inc.         |  | Delaware    
|Metals USA Finance Corp.                        |  | Delaware    
|Metals USA Flat Rolled Central, Inc.            |  | Missouri    
|Metals USA Management Co., L.P.                 |  | Delaware    
|Metals USA Plates and Shapes, Northeast, L.P.   |  | Delaware    
|Metals USA Plates and Shapes Southcentral, Inc. |  | Oklahoma    



---

|                                                            |  |               
|----------------------------------------------------------- |  | --------------
|Metals USA Plates and Shapes Southeast, Inc.                |  | Alabama       
|Metals USA Plates and Shapes Southwest, Limited Partnership |  | Connecticut   
|Metals USA Realty Company                                   |  | Delaware      
|Metals USA Specialty Metals Northcentral, Inc.              |  | Delaware      
|MUSA Newark, L.L.C.                                         |  | Delaware      
|MUSA GP, Inc.                                               |  | Delaware      
|MUSA LP, Inc.                                               |  | Delaware      
|Queensboro, L.L.C.                                          |  | North Carolina
|Wilkof-Morris                                               |  | Ohio          



-2-
*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 8/15/96

TENTH CIRCUIT

WILLIAM GARY MATTHEWS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

RON LYTLE, Associate Warden;

SUSAN CHANCELLOR, Property

Officer; LAWRENCE BARRERAS,

Warden,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 96-2006

(D.C. No. CIV-95-1336-JP)

(Dist. N.M.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, KELLY and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

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); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore

ordered submitted without oral argument.

Mr. William G. Matthews filed this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
1

 The district court granted Mr. Matthew’s motion for leave to proceed in

forma pauperis on appeal.

-2-

alleging that several state prison officials were responsible for the theft of his

personal property in violation of his right to due process and right against

unreasonable search and seizure. The district court dismissed Mr. Matthew’s

complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Matthews

appeals.1

Mr. Matthews submitted an “Inmate Grievance Form” claiming that his hobby

shop property, which was in a locked room, was stolen by unknown persons. The

grievance was settled in favor of Mr. Matthews and he received compensation for the

loss of his property. He asserts he received insufficient remuneration because the

prison discounted the value of the property and ignored the work he had put into the

finished product. 

The district court held that Mr. Matthews had received a meaningful

postdeprivation remedy and that there was consequently no constitutional violation,

citing Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984). We agree and AFFIRM substantially

for the reasons given by the district court.

The mandate shall issue forthwith.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Stephanie K. Seymour

Chief Judge
#### STATE ex rel. DAVIS et al. v. BANKSTON et al.

No. 2376.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

June 1, 1942.

Writ of Error Granted July 20, 1942.

For former opinion, see 7 So.2d 667.

Ponder & Ponder, of Amite, for applicant.

Reid & Reid, of Hammond, and S. S. Reid, of Amite, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

A motion is made in connection with the application for a rehearing, asking this court to either dismiss the appeal or transfer it to the Supreme Court for the reason that the pleadings show that the Dairy Farmers Protective League, Inc., has assets exceeding $20,000 in value, of which amount approximately $7,500 is in cash; that this court is without jurisdiction of the case for the reason that relators in seeking to oust respondents as officers of the said League have an interest in taking from respondents the power of control over said 'assets of the League, which control gives said officers the power to mismanage, destroy or place these assets beyond the reach of relators; that the value of these assets should determine the jurisdiction of the appellate court.

We gave consideration to this question of jurisdiction of the appeal when the case was first before us, thinking that, because of these allegations as to the assets of the corporation, this court did not have jurisdiction of the appeal, thereby making it our duty to transfer the appeal to the Supreme Court on our own motion. However, an examination of the matter convinced us then and convinces us now that this court has jurisdiction of the appeal.

*352In a suit to oust the officers of a corporation, the test of jurisdiction on appeal is not the amount or value of the funds and assets of the corporation which these officers control and administer, hut the salaries of the offices which they hold, as these officers have no right whatever to the funds and assets of the corporation. State ex rel North et al. v. Ermon et al., 133 La. 952, 63 So. 479. There is nothing in the record to show that the salaries of any of the three respondents exceeds $2,-000 for the term for which he was elected and is serving.

A further consideration of the merits of the case confirms us in the correctness of the opinion rendered in this matter.

For the above reasons, it is ordered that the motion to dismiss the appeal or transfer it to the Supreme Court is hereby overruled, and the application for a rehearing is refused.
#### European American Bank & Trust Company, Respondent, v H. Frenkel, Ltd., et al., Appellants.

Supreme Court, New York County (David Saxe, J.), entered July 28, 1989, based on an order entered September 8, 1988, granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, in favor of *155plaintiff against defendants, H. Frenkel, Ltd. and Herman Frenkel, in the total sum of $304,482.50, and an order of the same court and Justice, entered April 14, 1989, which, upon reargument, *inter alia,*granted plaintiff summary judgment against defendant Tobi Frenkel in the sum of $212,000 plus interest from September 24, 1988 and directed the clerk to enter a judgment accordingly, both unanimously affirmed, with costs and disbursements.

It is not contested that plaintiff bank loaned H. Frenkel, Ltd. $212,000; that H. Frenkel, Ltd. gave back a commercial note therefor; and that the individual defendants gave personal guarantees to the bank to cover the debts owed by H. Frenkel, Ltd. The defendants defaulted on the note and the guarantees. Thereafter plaintiff moved for summary judgment in lieu of complaint.

Defendants contested service of the summons and motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint. A traverse hearing was held before a Referee, whose finding in favor of plaintiffs claim of service was confirmed. Defendants contest that confirmation on appeal. "The report of a referee should be confirmed if the findings therein are supported by the record.” *(Namer v 152-54-56 W. 15th St. Realty Corp.,*108 AD2d 705.) "Generally, New York courts will look with favor upon a Referee’s report, inasmuch as the Referee, as trier of fact, is considered to be in the best position to determine the issues presented.” *(Matter of Holy Spirit Assn. v Tax Commn.,*81 AD2d 64, 70-71, *revd on other grounds*55 NY2d 512.) The evidence presented at the traverse hearing, consisting of the testimony, affidavits of service and logbook entries of the process server, along with the testimony of defendant Tobi Frenkel, support the determination of the Referee and its confirmation by the IAS court.

Defendants’ other defenses raised with respect to the guarantees and the underlying debt have been reviewed and found to be meritless. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Asch, Wallach and Smith, JJ.
#### Dora B. HELMS, Cross-Defendant, Appellant, v. Lelia C. WELCH et al., Appellees.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division B.

Nov. 30, 1954.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Maxco, Inc. (the
"Company") for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Max A. Coon, as Chief
Executive Officer of 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:

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

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

Date: August 18, 2005

                                             /s/ Max A. Coon
                                             ----------------------------------
                                             Max A. Coon
                                             Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.
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 on Form 10-Q of Maxco, Inc. (the
“Company”) for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Vincent Shunsky,
      as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that:




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




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


Date: 
              November 14, 2005
            
            /s/ Vincent
              ShunskyVincent
              ShunskyChief
              Financial Officer


A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Peter Martinez, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lagaña, J.), imposed June 2,1986.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed *(see, People v Smith,*74 NY2d 1, 9). Brown, J. P., Rubin, Balletta and Miller, JJ., concur.