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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,351,698
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,638,370
<ALLOWANCES>                                   160,461
<INVENTORY>                                  3,326,902
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,840,509
<PP&E>                                         316,689
<DEPRECIATION>                                 187,173
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,989,468
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,205,684
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     9,174,681
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,989,468
<SALES>                                      7,762,071
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,762,071
<CGS>                                        5,544,692
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,842,441
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (21,091)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                940,721
<INCOME-TAX>                                   424,586
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   516,135
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .05
        






</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Herman Alfredo Lopez v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-18-00358-CR

Trial court case number: 16-CR-2498

Trial court: 212th District Court of Galveston County

On December 10, 2019, this Court struck the opening brief filed by appellant’s appointed 

counsel and ordered the brief to be re-filed by December 30, 2019. On December 27, 2019, 

appointed counsel filed a motion requesting an additional sixty days to re-file an opening brief. 

The motion is denied. Unless this Court receives appellant’s brief within seven days of the date 

of this order, we will once again abate the case and order the trial court to conduct a hearing 

pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(b). See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Justice Sarah Beth Landau

Acting individually

Date: December 30, 2019
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 32.1


    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


Pursuant to 18 U. S. C. Section 1350, I, William C. Adair, Jr., hereby certify
that, to the best of my knowledge, the Quarterly Report of Direct General
Corporation on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 (the "Report")
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in that
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of Direct General Corporation.


August 9, 2004                                  By: /s/ William C. Adair, Jr.
--------------                                      ---------------------------
    Date                                                   (Signature)

                                                Name: William C. Adair, Jr.
                                                      -------------------------
                                                Title: Chairman,
                                                       Chief Executive Officer
                                                       and President
                                                       ------------------------
#### INMAN v. SILVER FLEET OF MEMPHIS et al.

No. 1735.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Nov. 6, 1937.

For former opinion, see 175 So. 436.

S. S. Reid, of Amite, and J. H. Inman, of Ponchatoula, in pro per. for appellant.

Porteous Johnson & Humphrey, of New Orleans, and Ponder & Ponder, of Amite, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This case was remanded for the purpose of enabling two of the defendants, the Silver Fleet of Memphis and the Central Surety & Insurance Corporation, to complete the transcript by including therein the exceptions filed by these two defendants and showing what action was taken thereon. (La.App.) 175 So. 847.

The original exceptions of vagueness and of no cause or right of action filed by these two defendants have been included in the transcript which, together with a certificate of its completeness, has been returned to this court in accordance with our former order. No further minute entries are shown as to the disposition of these exceptions other than those mentioned in our former opinion.

It is evident from the record as it is now made up that it was the inten-tion of the trial court to sustain the exceptions filed by these • two defendants, along with the one filed by the third defendant, Hester Truck Lines Inc., as the exceptions were all the same and were based on the same grounds. The effect of sustaining one exception was to dismiss plaintiff’s suit, and the result is the same, in so far as plaintiff is concerned, as though all these similar exceptions had been specifically mentioned in the judgment.

In order to clarify the matter and put the record in shape for a final disposition of the case, we have decided to correct, of our own motion, the judgment appealed from so as to show that the similar exceptions filed by all three defendants were sustained, and the suit dismissed.

For the reasons assigned it is now ordered that the judgment appealed from be corrected so as to show that the similar exceptions of no cause or right of action filed by all these defendants were sustained, and plaintiff’s suit dismissed, and as thus corrected the judgment is affirmed.

It is further ordered that the applications for rehearing filed by plaintiff, and by the defendants Silver Fleet of Memphis and the Central Surety & Insurance Corporation, be and the same are hereby refused.
Case 1:06-cv-00161-SM   Document 22   Filed 08/07/06   Page 1 of 1
1

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No. 123,467

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

STATE OF KANSAS,

Appellee,

v.

TRAVIS LEE HUFFSTUTLER,

Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Shawnee District Court; JASON GEIER, judge. Opinion filed June 18, 2021. 

Affirmed.

Submitted by the parties for summary disposition under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-6820(g) and (h).

Before MALONE, P.J., POWELL and WARNER,JJ.

PER CURIAM: Travis Lee Huffstutler appeals the district court's decision imposing 

a 60-day jail sanction for his probation violation. We granted Huffstutler's motion for 

summary disposition under Kansas Supreme Court Rule 7.041A (2021 Kan. S. Ct. R. 48). 

The State has filed no response.

On June 20, 2019, Huffstutler pled guilty to one count of burglary of a vehicle and 

one count of misdemeanor theft for crimes committed in December 2018. On December 

4, 2019, the district court imposed a controlling sentence of 16-months' imprisonment but 

granted a dispositional departure to probation for 12 months.
2

At a hearing on October 30, 2020, Huffstutler admitted to violating the conditions 

of his probation by "fail[ing] to remain law abiding." At the request of both parties, the 

district court imposed a 60-day jail sanction and gave Huffstutler credit for the full 60 

days that he had served. The district court did not modify or extend the probation in any 

way. Huffstutler's counsel timely filed a notice of appeal.

The district court's imposition of the jail sanction is reviewed for an abuse of 

discretion. A judicial action constitutes an abuse of discretion if (1) it is arbitrary, 

fanciful, or unreasonable; (2) it is based on an error of law; or (3) it is based on an error 

of fact. State v. Ingham, 308 Kan. 1466, 1469, 430 P.3d 931 (2018).

We are somewhat at a loss as to why Huffstutler has brought this appeal.

Huffstutler admitted to violating his probation by failing to remain law abiding. The 

district court imposed the 60-day jail sanction Huffstutler requested, and the sanction was 

authorized under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3716(c)(9). Under these facts, the district court 

would have been within its discretion to revoke Huffstutler's probation and order him to 

serve his original sentence. See K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 22-3716(c)(7)(B) and (c)(7)(C). There 

was no abuse of discretion by ordering the 60-day jail sanction.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
Statement  of Financial Condition  for  Princeton  Mining  Company  at  June 30,
2000  (unaudited)  and the Statement of Income  for the six  month period  ended
June  30,  2000 (unaudited)  and is  qualified  in  its  entirety  by  reference
to  such financial  statements.

</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                              45
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    45
<PP&E>                                          10,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  10,045
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           46,675
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       956,914
<OTHER-SE>                                    (993,544)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    10,045
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,654
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (4,654)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (4,654)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (4,654)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.00)








</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1283 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1283

To establish the policy of the United States with respect to deployment 
 of missile defense systems capable of defending allies of the United 
                States against ballistic missile attack.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 28, 2001

  Mr. Vitter introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
   Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee on 
International Relations, for a period to be subsequently determined by 
the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To establish the policy of the United States with respect to deployment 
 of missile defense systems capable of defending allies of the United 
                States against ballistic missile attack.

    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 ``Defense Against Regional Threats Act 
of 2001''.

SEC. 2. ALLIED MISSILE DEFENSE POLICY.

    It is the policy of the United States to provide for deployment as 
soon as is technologically possible of effective missile defense 
systems capable of defending Israel, Japan, the Republic of Korea, 
Taiwan, and all member nations of the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization against ballistic missile attack.

SEC. 3. ALLIED BURDENSHARING.

    It is the policy of the United States to seek continued negotiated 
burdensharing agreements with the nations specified in section 2 to 
share the costs of development and deployment of ballistic missile 
defense systems.
                                 <all>
```
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1283

To establish the policy of the United States with respect to deployment

of missile defense systems capable of defending allies of the United

States against ballistic missile attack.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 28, 2001

Mr. VITTER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee on International

Relations, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in

each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To establish the policy of the United States with respect

to deployment of missile defense systems capable of defending allies of the United States against ballistic missile attack.

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 ‘‘Defense Against Re5 gional Threats Act of 2001’’.
2

•HR 1283 IH

1 SEC. 2. ALLIED MISSILE DEFENSE POLICY.

2 It is the policy of the United States to provide for

3 deployment as soon as is technologically possible of effec4 tive missile defense systems capable of defending Israel,

5 Japan, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and all member

6 nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization against

7 ballistic missile attack.

8 SEC. 3. ALLIED BURDENSHARING.

9 It is the policy of the United States to seek continued

10 negotiated burdensharing agreements with the nations

11 specified in section 2 to share the costs of development

12 and deployment of ballistic missile defense systems.

Æ
#### MARKOVITZ et al. v. TAYLOR.

No. 6480.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Jan. 20, 1938.

Joseph S. Kleinbard, of Philadelphia, Pa., for appellants.

Joseph A. Keough and Levi, Mandel & Miller, all of Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee.

Before BUFFINGTON and DAVIS; Circuit Judges, and DICKINSON, District Judge.

DICKINSON, District Judge.

This case raises the question of the validity of assignments of accounts receivable by an assignor, which subsequently was adjudicated a bankrupt. The assignment authorized the assignor to collect the accounts, the proceeds, however, to be kept segregated. The assignor did make the collections, but did not segregate the proceeds. With the consent of the assignee, they were deposited in the assignor’s general bank account, thus commingling them with its other funds. The proceeds of the collected accounts were demanded of the trustee in bankruptcy by .the assignee. The claim was resisted by the trustee.

The referee ruled in favor of the allowance of the claim. This order was upon a petition for review reversed by the District Court and the reclamation petition dismissed. The present appeal iá from this order of the District Court.

The ruling of the referee followed the case of Benedict v. Ratner, 268 U.S. 353, 45 S.Ct. 566, 69 L.Ed. 991, 6 A.B.R.,N.S., 9, and In re Hawley Down-Draft Co., 3 Cir., 238 F. 122, 38 A.B.R. 219, to which may be added a case in this court. The caption of the case is Jamestown Veneer, etc., Corporation v. Andrews, 3 Cir., 93 F.2d 989, decided January 5th, 1938. '

The ruling of the District Court accepts the doctrine of these and the other cited cases, but differentiates them on the ground that in the instant case the assignor was permitted by the assignee to commingle the proceeds of the assigned accounts with the general funds of the assignor. This was not true of the cited cases. In the Jamestown Veneer, etc., Corporation v. Andrews Case, for illustration, the assigned “accounts were collected and segregated by the bankrupt’s trustee.” This feature is absent from the instant case, but, on the contrary, the collected moneys so far lost their identity that the assignee became no more than a creditor of the assignor.

The learned judge has so fully suppprted his ruling by his accompanying opinion that we see no need to retrace the ground he has so well covered.

The order of the District ~ Court is affirmed, allowing the petition to review the order of the referee and reversing the same, and dismissing the reclamation petition of Jerome L. Markovitz and Regina Markovitz, the appellants.
Exhibit 32.1

                    Certification of Chief Executive Officer
            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

C.W.  Gilluly,  Chief Executive  Officer of AMASYS  Corporation  (the "Company")
certifies  in his capacity as an officer of the Company that he has reviewed the
Report of the Company on Form  10-QSB for the  quarter  ended March 31, 2005 and
that to the best of his or her knowledge:

1.   the report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) and 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.

The purpose of this  statement  is solely to comply  with Title 18,  Chapter 63,
Section  1350 of the United  States  code,  as  amended  by  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

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 it staff upon request.



May 16, 2005                      /s/ C.W. Gilluly, Ed.D
                                  --------------------------------------------
                                  C.W. Gilluly, Ed.D.
                                  Chief Executive Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Isidro CASTILLO-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-51358

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 14, 2003.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Isidro Castillo-Hernandez (“Castillo”) appeals his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry subsequent to deportation. 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). He argues that the district court abused its discretion in excluding from the evidence at trial the clothing he was wearing at the time of arrest. He contends it would have cast doubt upon the testimony of the Government’s key witness, Border Patrol Agent Mesa, who testified that Castillo’s clothes were wet and muddy when he was found near the Rio Grande River.

Although it is debatable whether the district court abused its discretion in excluding the clothing, *see e.g., United States v. Colatriano,*624 F.2d 686, 689 (5th Cir. 1980), the error was harmless. Whether the clothes were still wet or muddy would *363not necessarily have had an impact on Agent Mesa’s credibility, as Officer Legaretta’s testimony indicated that Castillo may have been allowed to clean up or change into clean clothes after his arrest, thus clouding whether the clothes inventoried at the prison were the ones Castillo was wearing when Agent Mesa arrested him. Moreover, the evidence showed that Castillo was discovered 100 yards north of the border, that he admitted he was not a United States citizen, that he did not have permission to be in this country, and that he had been previously deported. In light of the overwhelming and unrebutted evidence of Castillo’s guilt, the district court’s exclusion of the clothing was harmless. *See United States v. Haese,*162 F.3d 359, 364 (5th Cir.1998).

Castillo argues that under the reasoning of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), the sentencing provision of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is unconstitutional. Castillo concedes that this issue is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), but he raises it to preserve it for possible Supreme Court review.

*Apprendi*did not overrule *AlmendarezTorres. See Apprendi*530 U.S. at 489-90, 120 S.Ct. 2348; see *also United States v. Dabeit,*231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir.2000). This Court must therefore follow the precedent set in *Almendarez-Torres*“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” *Dabeit,*231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation and citation omitted).

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.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 182 (Thursday, September 18, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 54175]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21836]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-63,819]


Jakel, Inc., Murray, KY; Notice of Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on August 6, 2008 in response to a petition 
filed by workers of Jakel, Inc., Murray, Kentucky. The subject firm 
stopped production on September 30, 2007.
    The petitioning group of workers is covered by a previous 
certification (TA-W-59,714) which expired on September 2, 2008. The 
date of separation of the worker group was within the time period 
covered by this certification. Consequently, further investigation in 
this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been 
terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 8th day of September 2008.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E8-21836 Filed 9-17-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P