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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       3,085,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,000
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,093,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          523,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                   108,568,000
<OTHER-SE>                                (105,998,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,093,000
<SALES>                                      6,512,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,686,000
<CGS>                                          210,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,125,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                90,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              5,461,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          5,461,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 5,461,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .57
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .57
        

</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





In connection with the Annual Report of All American Pet Company, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Victor Hollander, CFO and Principal Accounting 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:





3.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





4.
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








/S/ Victor HollanderVictor HollanderCFO andPrincipal Accounting OfficerAugust 18, 2010
EXHIBIT 31.1

               CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(D)/15D-14(D)
                    UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

I, Anthony N. Renzi, certify that:

1. I have  reviewed  this  report  on Form  10-K and all  reports  on Form  10-D
   required to be filed in respect of the period  covered by this report on Form
   10-K of RALI Series 2006-QS7 Trust (the "Exchange Act periodic reports");

2. Based on my knowledge,  the Exchange Act periodic reports,  taken as a whole,
   do not contain  any untrue  statement  of a material  fact or omit to state a
   material  fact  necessary  to make  the  statements  made,  in  light  of the
   circumstances  under which such  statements  were made, not  misleading  with
   respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based  on  my  knowledge,  all  of  the  distribution,  servicing  and  other
   information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by
   this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities  performed by the servicers and
   based on my knowledge and the compliance  reviews  conducted in preparing the
   servicer  compliance  statements  required in this report  under Item 1123 of
   Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic  reports,
   the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements
   in all material respects; and

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance  with  servicing  criteria for
   asset-backed  securities and their related  attestation reports on assessment
   of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to
   be included in this report in accordance  with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and
   Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this
   report,  except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances
   of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report
   on Form 10-K.

In giving the  certifications  above,  I have  reasonably  relied on information
provided to me by the  following  unaffiliated  parties:  National City Mortgage
Co., SunTrust Mortgage, Inc. and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas.

Date:  March 26, 2007

By:    /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
Title: Managing Director
Exhibit 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

        I, Jeffrey R. Noordhoek, certify that:

        1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form
10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on
Form 10-K, of Nelnet Student Loan Trust 2006-2 (the "Exchange Act periodic
reports");

        2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a
whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a
material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect
to the period covered by this report;

        3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other
information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by
this report has been included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

        4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required
in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the
Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations
under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and

        5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing
criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on
assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities
required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of
Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an
exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any
material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been
disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.



Date:  April 2, 2007                 /s/ JEFFREY R. NOORDHOEK
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     Jeffrey R. Noordhoek
                                     Vice President
                                     Nelnet Student Loan Funding Management
                                        Corporation,
                                     Manager and Special Member of the Depositor
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-23-00423-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 1

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2023-005672-1

Before Bassel, Womack, and Wallach, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

RASHAAD ALLEN, Appellant

V.

MID-AMERICA APARTMENTS DBA MAA WILLOW CREEK, Appellee
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

Appellant’s brief was due on February 28, 2024. On March 13, 2024, we 

notified appellant that his brief had not been filed as the appellate rules require. See 

Tex. R. App. P. 38.6(a). We stated that we could dismiss the appeal for want of 

prosecution unless, within ten days, appellant filed with the court an appellant’s brief 

and an accompanying motion reasonably explaining the brief’s untimely filing and 

why an extension was needed. See Tex. R. App. P. 10.5(b), 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b). We 

have received no response.

Because appellant has failed to file a brief even after we afforded an 

opportunity to explain the initial failure, we dismiss the appeal for want of 

prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), 43.2(f).

Per Curiam

Delivered: April 11, 2024
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 report of Asia Time Corporation (the “Company”) on Form
      10-K/A for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, in
      the capacities and on the date 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.




/s/
      Kwong
      Kai Shun





Kwong
      Kai
      Shun


Chief
      Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and


Chairman
      of the Board


(Principal
      Executive Officer; Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)





September
      26, 2007





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
      provided to Asia Time Corporation and will be retained by Asia Time Corporation
      and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
IIA

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 80

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

DECEMBER 20 (legislative day, DECEMBER 18), 2001

Received

JOINT RESOLUTION

Appointing the day for the convening of the second session

of the One Hundred Seventh Congress.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HJ 80 RDS

1 SECTION 1. DAY FOR CONVENING OF SECOND REGULAR

2 SESSION OF ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CON3 GRESS.

4 The second regular session of the One Hundred Sev5 enth Congress shall begin at noon on Wednesday, January

6 23, 2002.

7 SEC. 2. AUTHORITY FOR CALLING SPECIAL SESSION BE8 FORE CONVENING OF SECOND REGULAR SES9 SION.

10 If the Speaker of the House of Representatives and

11 the Majority Leader of the Senate, acting jointly after con12 sultation with the Minority Leader of the House of Rep13 resentatives and the Minority Leader of the Senate, deter14 mine that it is in the public interest for Congress to as15 semble before the convening of the second regular session

16 of the One Hundred Seventh Congress as provided in sec17 tion 1—

18 (1) the Speaker and Majority Leader shall no19 tify the Members of the House and Senate, respec20 tively, of such determination and of the place and

21 time for Congress to so assemble; and
3

HJ 80 RDS

1 (2) Congress shall assemble in accordance with

2 such notification.

Passed the House of Representatives December 20,

2001.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-7295

SUNDARI K. PRASAD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JUDGE M. HANNAH LAUCK; MAGISTRATE RODERICK YOUNG; 

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:17-cv-00042-JAG)

Submitted: January 30, 2018 Decided: February 2, 2018

Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sundari K. Prasad, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Sundari K. Prasad seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without 

prejudice her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action for failure to comply with the court’s prior 

order to particularize her complaint. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final 

orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 

U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 

U.S. 541, 545-47 (1949). Because the deficiencies identified by the district court may be 

remedied by particularizing the complaint as directed, we conclude that the order Prasad 

seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. 

Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 623-24 (4th Cir. 2015); Domino 

Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.*

 We deny as moot Prasad’s 

motion to consolidate this appeal with the mandamus petition we previously denied in 

No. 17-1910, and deny as unnecessary Prasad’s motion to amend to add President Trump 

as a party on appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

 * We do not remand this matter to the district court, though, because the court 

previously afforded Prasad the chance to particularize her complaint, and she failed to do 

so. Cf. Goode, 807 F.3d at 629-30.
NO. 2014 -30215

IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF

EVANGELINA LOPEZ GUZMAN
ZARAGOZA,

AND

MIGUEL ZARAGOZA FUENTES and CO

RESPONDENTS, ELSA ESTHER
CARRILLO ANCHONDO, ROBERT DALE
BAUCOM, ERNESTO CARRILLO,
RAOUL GISLER, EVANGELINA
ZARAGOZA LOPEZ, MYRNA ALICIA
ZARAGOZA LOPEZ, ABBINGDON
MARINE, INC., CADOGAN PROPERTIES,
INC., DADE AVIATION, INC., EZ AR
MANAGEMENT, L.L.C., EZAR
PROPERTIES, L.P., TEXAS LPG
STORAGE COMPANY, AND TEXAS

OVERSEAS GAS CORP. § § § § § § § § § § §
§ § § § § § § § § § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF

HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

245TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NOTICE OF APPEAL

TO THE HONORABLE COURT:

Subject to his previously filed special appearance, and subject to all jurisdictional

arguments previously asserted, Respondent, Miguel Zaragoza Fuentes, intend s to appeal the trial

court’s order captioned, “Clarifications and Additional Injunctions for Temporary Orders,”

signed on September 2, 2015, pursuant to Rules 25.1(d) and 26.1(c) of the Texas Rules of

Appe llate Procedure. This appeal is taken to the First or Fourteenth Court of Appeals in

Houston, Texas. This is an appeal of a temporary injunction order and is accelerated. 9/24/2015 10:14:24 AM Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County

Envelope No. 7074833 By: Irma Medina
Filed: 9/24/2015 10:14:24 AM

ACCEPTED
01-15-00818-CV
FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS
9/30/2015 2:19:49 PM
CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK2 CHAMBERLAIN, HRDLICKA, WHITE

WILLIAMS & AUGHTRY

By: /s/ Kevin D. Jewell

Kevin D. Jewell

Texas Bar No. 00787769 1200 Smith Street, Suite 1400
Houston, Texas 77002 (713) 658

- 1818 (Tel.) (713) 658

- 2553 (Fax)

A TTORNEYS FOR R ESPONDENT

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served on this the

24 th day of September , 2015 by electronic service, facsimile and/or certified mail, return rec eipt requested, or hand delivery, to the attorneys and/or parties listed below.

Via electronic service : Jeanne Caldwell McDowell

Rebekah H. Birdwell

The Law Offices of Jeanne Caldwell McDowell

603 Avondale
Houston, Texas 77006

Via electronic service : Mary Olga Lovett Greenberg Traurig, L.L.P. 1000 Louisiana, Suite 1700
Houston, Texas 77002

Via electronic service : J. Lindsey Short

Adam J. Morris

Short Carter Morris 1177 West Loop South, Suite 700
Houston, Texas 77027

- 9016

Via electronic service : Ric ardo L. Ramos 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 1450
Houston, Texas 77002

/s/ Kevin D. Jewell

Kevin D. Jewell
#### George HIGHT, Petitioner, v. The STATE of Texas, Respondent.

No. B-3137.

Supreme Court of Texas.

July 12, 1972.

*257Green & Richardson, Harry C. Green, Texas City, for petitioner.

Jules Damiani, Jr., Dist. Atty., Ron Wilson and Louise C. Rowen, Asst. Dist. Attys., Galveston, for respondent.

ON REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

On July 2, 1971 the State filed a petition to declare George Hight a juvenile delinquent, based on certain criminal acts alleged to have taken place on June 27, 1971. George Hight was born on September 23, 1954; thus, he was sixteen years old and therefore subject to juvenile delinquency proceedings when the offenses occurred and when the State sought to have him declared a delinquent. Article 2338-1, Sec. 3-5, Vernon’s Ann.Tex.Civ.Stat. The State abandoned its efforts to have him adjudicated a delinquent and then sought to have the juvenile court waive its exclusive jurisdiction over this minor in order that the Grand Jury could indict him for the criminal offenses. After a hearing as required by Article 2338-1, Sec. 6, Vernon’s Ann. Tex.Civ.Stat., the juvenile judge waived jurisdiction over George Hight on August 18, 1971.

 George Hight appealed the waiver order to the Court of Civil Appeals claiming error in the waiver proceeding. That court refused to consider the merits of the case but took notice of the fact that George Hight had reached age seventeen and that the juvenile court had lost jurisdiction. This loss of jurisdiction was said by the court to make the case moot, and following established Texas procedure, set aside all previous orders. Tex.Civ.App., 473 S.W.2d 348. We disagree with this reasoning. The single fact of his reaching age seventeen has nothing to do with whether the case is moot; the loss of jurisdiction in the juvenile court only prevents a remand if the case is reversed. See Carrillo v. State, 480 S.W.2d 612 (Tex.1972). We do agree, however, with the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals but for a different reason. An affidavit by the District Attorney advised this Court that George Hight became seventeen years of age in September 1971; that the Grand Jury did not meet until October 1971; that the Grand Jury handed down its indictment in November 1971. It is thus apparent that the waiver order was not relied upon by the Grand Jury, and this case is therefore moot.

No judgment we could render concerning the waiver order would in any way affect anyone’s rights. The waiver order did not serve as a predicate to the indictment by the Grand Jury, and no stigma attached to George Hight because he was never adjudged by the juvenile court to have committed any offense.

The motion for rehearing is therefore overruled.
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1048

To facilitate transfers between interest-bearing accounts and transactions

accounts at depository institutions for small businesses.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 15, 2001

Mr. ANDREWS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Financial Services

A BILL

To facilitate transfers between interest-bearing accounts and

transactions accounts at depository institutions for small

businesses.

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 ‘‘Small Business Bank5 ing Improvement Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. IMMEDIATE INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF COM7 MERCIAL INTERACCOUNT TRANSFERS AL8 LOWED EACH MONTH.

9 Section 2 of Public Law 93–100 (12 U.S.C. 1832)

10 is amended—
2

•HR 1048 IH

1 (1) by redesignating subsections (b) and (c) as

2 subsections (c) and (d), respectively; and

3 (2) by inserting after subsection (a) the fol4 lowing new subsection:

5 ‘‘(b) INTERACCOUNT TRANSFERS.—

6 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other

7 provision of law, any depository institution may per8 mit the owner of any deposit or account on which in9 terest or dividends are paid and which is not a de10 posit or account described in subsection (a)(2) to

11 make up to 24 transfers per month, for any purpose,

12 to another account of the owner in the same institu13 tion.

14 ‘‘(2) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—No provision

15 of this subsection shall be construed as preventing

16 an account offered pursuant to this subsection from

17 being considered a transaction account (as defined

18 in section 19(b) of the Federal Reserve Act) for pur19 poses of such Act.’’.

Æ
211 La. 544

#### Succession of DUGAS.

No. 37984.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 21, 1947.

C. Arthur Provost, of New Iberia, for appellant.

O. J. Mestayer, of New Iberia, for appel-lee.

PONDER, Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing an opposition to the final account of an administratrix.

Erazie Dugas died on April 10, 1945 leaving a succession composed of a small tract of land which was sold pursuant to an order of court for $1,500.

The administratrix filed a final account proposing to disburse the $1,500 by paying the cost of administration, funeral debts and the balance to herself as creditor to the succession. One of the surviving heirs of the deceased opposed the homologation of the account insofar as the claim of the ad-ministratrix as a creditor was concerned. On hearing the opposition was dismissed. The opponent appealed to this Court. On submission of the appeal, we ascertained from the record that we are without jurisdiction to entertain the appeal for the reason that the entire amount to be distributed is only $1,500.

Under the provisions of Article 7, § 10 of the Constitution of this State, this Court has appellate jurisdiction in civil suits only where the amount of the fund to be distributed exceeds $2,000, exclusive of interest. Succession of Ethridge, 210 La. 1038, 29 So. 2d 55. The appellate jurisdiction of this cause lies in the Court of Appeal.

For the reasons assigned, it is ordered that this case be transferred to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, pursuant to the provisions of Act No. 19 of 1912, provided that the appellants shall file the record in such court within 30 days from the date on which this decree shall become final; otherwise the appeal shall stand dismissed.