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

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED INCOME STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-03-1998             AUG-03-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-02-1998             AUG-04-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-03-1998             MAY-03-1998
<CASH>                                           2,088                   2,088
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   34,550                  34,550
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,349                   1,349
<INVENTORY>                                      1,262                   1,262
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,138                   6,138
<PP&E>                                         164,616                 164,616
<DEPRECIATION>                                  43,252                  43,252
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 205,249                 205,249
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,869                  22,869
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                     14,835                  14,835
<COMMON>                                        41,746                  41,746
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,197                   7,197
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   205,249                 205,249
<SALES>                                         39,101                  95,017
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                39,101                  95,017
<CGS>                                           23,894                  60,282
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   23,894                  60,282
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,527                  27,260
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,553                   5,430
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,127                   2,045
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,127                   2,045
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (2,449)                 (2,449)
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,322)                   (404)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.14)                  (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.12)                  (0.04)
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jose Lauriano SEPULVEDA, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 02-10231.

D.C. No. CR-01-00144-DWH/RAM.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 10, 2003.*

Decided March 19, 2003.

Before CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

*761MEMORANDUM**

Jose Lauriano Sepulveda appeals the judgment of conviction and his 68-month sentence for unlawful reentry by a deported, removed and/or excluded alien in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

Sepulveda contends that he cannot be subjected to a sentencing enhancement under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b), because that statute only applies to aliens who have been removed, and not to aliens who have been deported or excluded, as Sepulveda was. This contention lacks merit because we have held that there is no legally significant distinction between “deportation” and “removal” for purposes of the crime defined by 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and the enhancement under section 1326(b). *See United States v. Lopez-Gonzalez,*183 F.3d 933, 934-35 (9th Cir.1999).

Sepulveda also contends that the district court violated his rights under *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000) because 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) describes a separate crime from subsection (a), and must be pled in the indictment. As he acknowledges, this issue has been foreclosed by *United States v. Arellano-Rivera,*244 F.3d 1119, 1127 (9th Cir.2001), *cert. denied,*535 U.S. 976, 122 S.Ct. 1450, 152 L.Ed.2d 392 (2002); *United States v. Pacheco-Zepeda,*234 F.3d 411, 414 — 15 (9th Cir.2000), *cert. denied,*532 U.S. 966, 121 S.Ct. 1503, 149 L.Ed.2d 388 (2001).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
10

A.6. Share of Non-real-estate Bank Loans with a Floating Interest Rate Made to FarmersPercent

Size of loan Si

Purpose of loan (thousands of dollars) 

Other Farm 

current machinery 3 10 25 100

All Feeder Other operating and to to to and Sma

Period loans livestock livestock expenses1 equipment Other2 9 24 99 over mid-

1994...... 75.1 82.9 74.3 72.3 51.6 75.7 58.6 59.8 70.4 80.2 1995...... 73.8 83.9 75.9 73.0 53.1 72.2 61.7 63.9 73.6 76.7 1996...... 63.1 58.1 71.2 67.3 32.9 61.4 60.6 61.5 69.1 62.2 1997...... 65.8 66.4 73.2 67.8 49.9 64.3 60.1 58.0 68.0 67.0 1998...... 54.4 55.0 59.4 68.5 46.7 42.0 57.6 54.8 62.7 51.1 1999...... 60.7 45.6 66.0 68.6 58.2 52.0 52.6 54.6 60.2 63.1 2000...... 66.9 57.3 60.7 67.0 62.2 76.7 53.4 54.6 61.8 74.5 2001...... 74.5 72.9 65.6 75.0 61.0 80.5 58.8 60.9 69.4 81.5 2002...... 75.1 64.6 65.4 75.8 60.9 84.1 67.8 64.5 68.4 81.2 2003...... 74.3 68.7 59.6 74.6 69.5 86.5 67.6 65.1 63.0 82.1 2004...... 74.3 67.2 47.5 73.4 71.2 91.3 65.8 63.7 63.1 79.9 2005...... 77.1 62.7 71.4 73.0 83.9 90.6 67.6 62.9 65.4 83.2 2003: Q1... 74.7 64.0 79.5 75.4 61.7 86.0 68.2 67.5 63.7 80.8  Q2... 69.2 53.9 63.8 67.1 74.0 84.0 66.7 62.8 54.8 79.9  Q3... 78.2 74.9 41.0 81.0 78.2 88.8 69.7 64.4 73.6 84.1  Q4... 74.9 75.5 53.0 75.3 67.4 87.1 66.0 65.6 61.6 83.4 2004: Q1... 69.4 65.2 62.7 66.8 55.1 86.3 64.5 66.2 61.9 72.3  Q2... 80.5 79.6 52.8 77.7 72.5 94.5 68.5 66.1 67.6 88.9  Q3... 74.5 67.5 48.7 71.0 68.8 92.1 60.5 60.1 60.9 82.0  Q4... 74.1 64.4 34.6 79.7 86.9 91.5 70.1 61.7 61.7 79.2 2005: Q1... 72.7 61.2 73.9 73.5 51.6 83.2 66.7 59.1 64.2 78.1  Q2... 82.7 64.7 78.6 74.9 89.7 95.4 65.8 64.4 69.5 88.9  Q3... 75.3 70.0 70.5 63.3 89.1 88.4 68.5 66.5 61.5 81.4  Q4... 75.4 59.7 65.2 81.5 72.6 87.9 70.3 60.5 66.7 81.1 2006: Q1... 70.5 59.1 71.1 65.7 76.4 90.9 63.9 64.5 62.7 74.0  Q2... 75.9 68.7 69.8 66.0 85.6 90.8 68.8 64.4 70.3 79.4  Q3... 78.3 43.0 64.3 81.2 78.5 96.6 76.9 72.9 62.9 83.5  Note. Data are estimates from the Federal Reserve System’s Survey of the Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers. Quarterly estimates annual rate and are based on loans made during the first full week of the second month of the quarter. 1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses and the care and feeding of livestock (including p 2. Typically loans for which the lender does not know the purpose. 3. Portfolios with $25 million or less in farm loans. 4. Portfolios with more than $25 million in farm loans.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-549

In Re: WILLIE JAMES MURPHY, JR., a/k/a Jerry

Robinson,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-91-277-2)

Submitted: July 25, 1996 Decided: August 12, 1996

Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Willie James Murphy, Jr., Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Willie James Murphy filed this petition for a writ of mandamus

asking the court to compel the district court to grant his Motion

to Have the DEA/Government Reveal the Procedures Used in Testing

Substances Seized from Defendant and Supply Sample for Chemical

Analysis. However, mandamus is not a substitute for appeal. In re

United Steelworkers, 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979). Murphy

could have challenged the district court's order by way of an appeal. Therefore, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 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.

PETITION DENIED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Robert V. Towle

v. Civil No. 08-cv-038-JL

Warden, New Hampshire State Prison

O R D E R

Before the Court is Robert Towle’s petition for a writ of

habeas corpus (document no. 1) and amended petition for a writ of

habeas corpus (document no. 6), filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2254. The matter previously came before me for preliminary

review. See Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Proceedings in

the United States District Courts (“§ 2254 Rule”) (requiring

initial review to determine whether the petition is facially

valid); United States District Court District of New Hampshire

Local Rule 4.3(d)(2) (authorizing magistrate judge to

preliminarily review pro se filings by incarcerated persons). 

After an initial review of the petition, I issued an Order

directing Towle to amend his petition to demonstrate that all of

his claims had been exhausted in the state courts (document no.

3).

Case 1:08-cv-00038-JL Document 7 Filed 07/16/08 Page 1 of 3
2

Towle has complied with my order to amend by filing an

amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus (document no. 6). 

The amended petition demonstrates that each of the claims raised

in Towle’s original petition, and enumerated in my order to

amend, including the federal nature of each of the claims, was

presented to the New Hampshire Supreme Court in Towle’s December

13, 2007 notice of appeal. The New Hampshire Supreme Court

declined the appeal on January 28, 2008. The claims presented in

Towle’s federal habeas petition have thus been exhausted and the

petition may proceed.

Accordingly, the petition shall be served upon the New

Hampshire State Prison, which shall file an answer or other

pleading in response to the allegations made therein. See id.

(requiring reviewing judge to order a response to the petition).

The Clerk’s office is directed to serve the New Hampshire Office

of the Attorney General, as provided in the Agreement on

Acceptance of Service copies of this Order, the original habeas

petition (document no. 1), my February 14, 2008 order to amend

(document no. 3) and the amended habeas petition (document no.

6). Respondent shall answer, or otherwise plead within thirty

(30) days of the date of this Order. The answer shall comply

Case 1:08-cv-00038-JL Document 7 Filed 07/16/08 Page 2 of 3
3

with the requirements of § 2254 Rule 5 (setting forth contents of

the answer). 

Upon receipt of the response, the Court will determine

whether a hearing is warranted. See § 2254 Rule 8 (providing

circumstances under which a hearing is appropriate). 

Petitioner is referred to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5, which requires

that every pleading, written motion, notice, and similar paper,

after the petition, shall be served on all parties. Such service

is to be made by mailing the material to the parties’

attorney(s). 

SO ORDERED. 

_______________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: July 16, 2008

cc: Robert V. Towle, pro se

Case 1:08-cv-00038-JL Document 7 Filed 07/16/08 Page 3 of 3
Case 1:06-cv-00451-PB   Document 74   Filed 01/05/10   Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 99.2

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

I, Elan Yaish,  Chief Financial  Officer of Manchester  Technologies,  Inc. (the
"Company"),  do hereby certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of  2002,  that,  to my
knowledge:

1.   the Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly  period
     ended  October  31,  2002,  as  filed  with  the  Securities  and  Exchange
     Commission (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: December 12, 2002

/S/ Elan Yaish
--------------

Elan Yaish
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
<PAGE>




                                                                 Exhibit 32(b)



                                    TXU CORP.
                       Certificate Pursuant to Section 906
                         of Sarbanes - Oxley Act of 2002
                              CERTIFICATION OF CFO


         The undersigned,  Kirk R. Oliver, Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer of TXU Corp. (the "Company"), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:

   1.    The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
         September 30, 2004 (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.    Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
         respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
         Company.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this instrument to be
executed this 5th day of November, 2004.




                                             /s/  Kirk R. Oliver
                                        --------------------------------------
                                        Name:     Kirk R. Oliver
                                        Title:    Executive Vice President
                                                  and Chief Financial Officer







A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to TXU Corp. and will be retained by TXU Corp. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 99.2
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Elan Yaish,  Chief Financial  Officer of Manchester  Technologies,  Inc. (the
"Company"),  do hereby certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of  2002,  that,  to my
knowledge:

1.   the Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly  period
     ended  January  31,  2003,  as  filed  with  the  Securities  and  Exchange
     Commission (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: March 11, 2003

/S/     Elan Yaish
------------------
Elan Yaish
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
5

A.1. Number of Non-real-estate Bank Loans Made to FarmersMillions

Size of loan Si

Purpose of loan (thousands of dollars) 

Other Farm 

current machinery 1 10 25 100

Feeder Other operating and to to to and Sm

Period Total livestock livestock expenses1 equipment Other2 9 24 99 over mid

1992...... 2.69 .35 .25 1.67 .18 .24 1.67 .54 .37 .11 1993...... 2.70 .36 .27 1.62 .18 .27 1.65 .56 .37 .12 1994...... 2.53 .28 .23 1.56 .18 .27 1.55 .51 .35 .12 1995...... 2.49 .26 .19 1.48 .17 .39 1.45 .57 .36 .12 1996...... 2.22 .18 .17 1.38 .14 .36 1.33 .48 .31 .11 1997...... 2.27 .19 .20 1.40 .15 .33 1.32 .50 .34 .11 1998...... 2.10 .15 .18 1.39 .17 .22 1.20 .45 .33 .12 1999...... 1.96 .14 .16 1.32 .16 .18 1.09 .44 .32 .11 2000...... 1.91 .11 .17 1.30 .13 .19 1.09 .44 .28 .10 2001...... 1.76 .13 .16 1.08 .13 .26 .97 .40 .28 .11 2002...... 1.95 .11 .15 1.34 .12 .23 1.11 .42 .31 .12 2003...... 1.66 .12 .12 1.14 .13 .15 .91 .36 .29 .10 2001: Q1... 1.63 .12 .17 .97 .14 .23 .84 .37 .30 .11  Q2... 2.16 .13 .19 1.34 .16 .34 1.23 .49 .32 .12  Q3... 1.66 .09 .13 1.09 .12 .23 1.00 .36 .23 .08  Q4... 1.57 .17 .15 .92 .10 .24 .81 .38 .26 .12 2002: Q1... 1.76 .14 .16 1.10 .13 .24 .90 .39 .34 .14  Q2... 2.44 .11 .15 1.78 .13 .26 1.44 .52 .34 .14  Q3... 1.95 .07 .14 1.40 .14 .20 1.16 .40 .29 .10  Q4... 1.65 .13 .15 1.09 .07 .20 .92 .36 .28 .09 2003: Q1... 1.69 .13 .14 1.08 .16 .18 .84 .37 .33 .15  Q2... 1.81 .11 .12 1.27 .15 .15 1.07 .37 .27 .09  Q3... 1.58 .08 .09 1.17 .10 .14 .94 .33 .24 .08  Q4... 1.57 .14 .14 1.04 .10 .15 .80 .36 .31 .10 2004: Q1... 1.60 .09 .13 1.12 .12 .15 .81 .33 .32 .14  Q2... 1.88 .08 .13 1.38 .14 .15 1.06 .43 .28 .10  Q3... 1.62 .07 .12 1.17 .14 .12 .93 .36 .23 .10  Note. Data are estimates from the Federal Reserve System’s Survey of the Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers. Quarterly estimates aannual rate and are based on loans made during the first full week of the second month of the quarter. 1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses and the care and feeding of livestock (including p 2. Typically loans for which the lender does not know the purpose. 3. Portfolios with $25 million or less in farm loans. 4. Portfolios with more than $25 million in farm loans.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**ChiefExecutive Officer’s Certification of Report on Form 10-Qfor Quarterly Period Ending June 30, 2003**

 

I, Michael E.Jalbert, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of EFJ, Inc.;

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

(a)               All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

(b)              Any fraud, whetheror not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date:  | July 29, 2003 |   | By:  | /s/ Michael E. Jalbert  |   |
|--------|---------------|--------|-----------|-------------------------|--------|
|   |          |   |      | Michael E. Jalbert      |   |
|   |          |   |      | Chief Executive Officer |   |

 

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-248-PB

Stephanie Nagy

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

May 6, 2008 trial in the above case to allow additional time to

negotiate a plea agreement. The government does not object to a

continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reason and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from May 6, 2008 to August 19, 2008. In

agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial

The April 22, 2008 final pretrial conference is continued to

July 30, 2008 at 3:45 p.m.

Case 1:07-cr-00248-PB Document 13 Filed 04/21/08 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

April 21, 2008

cc: Stanley Norkunas, Esq.

Peter Papps, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00248-PB Document 13 Filed 04/21/08 Page 2 of 2