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

<ARTICLE>                                         5
<MULTIPLIER>                                       1,000

<S>                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  JUL-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                       APR-30-2000
<CASH>                                              14,667
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       48,464
<ALLOWANCES>                                         1,020
<INVENTORY>                                         14,834
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    77,982
<PP&E>                                              12,434
<DEPRECIATION>                                       6,049
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      91,778
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               48,081
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                82
<OTHER-SE>                                          43,621
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        91,778
<SALES>                                            218,074
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   218,074
<CGS>                                              188,110
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      188,110
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    24,606
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      (4)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      5,836
<INCOME-TAX>                                         2,430
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  3,406
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                         3,406
<EPS-BASIC>                                           .42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         .42


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 192 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 192

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the 1993 increase 
              in income taxes on Social Security benefits.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2001

  Mr. Stump introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the 1993 increase 
              in income taxes on Social Security benefits.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF 1993 INCREASE IN TAX ON SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 86(a) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to social security and tier 1 railroad 
retirement benefits) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
sentence:
        ``This paragraph shall not apply to any taxable year beginning 
        after December 31, 2001.''
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--
            (1) Paragraph (3) of section 871(a) of such Code is amended 
        by striking ``85 percent'' in subparagraph (A) and inserting 
        ``50 percent''.
            (2)(A) Subparagraph (A) of section 121(e)(1) of the Social 
        Security Amendments of 1983 (Public Law 98-21) is amended--
                    (i) by striking ``(A) There'' and inserting 
                ``There'';
                    (ii) by striking ``(i)'' immediately following 
                ``amounts equivalent to''; and
                    (iii) by striking ``, less (ii)'' and all that 
                follows and inserting a period.
            (B) Paragraph (1) of section 121(e) of such Act is amended 
        by striking subparagraph (B).
            (C) Paragraph (3) of section 121(e) of such Act is amended 
        by striking subparagraph (B) and by redesignating subparagraph 
        (C) as subparagraph (B).
            (D) Paragraph (2) of section 121(e) of such Act is amended 
        in the first sentence by striking ``paragraph (1)(A)'' and 
        inserting ``paragraph (1)''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2001.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 99.1

WRITTEN CERTIFICATION of
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER and CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT to 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

The
undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of EFJ, Inc. (the "Company"), each hereby certifies that, to the best of each of their knowledge:



| |  | By: | /s/MICHAEL E. JALBERTMichael E. Jalbert
Chief Executive Officer
October 24, 2002
| |  | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | By: | /s/MASSOUD SAFAVIMassoud Safavi
Chief Financial Officer
October 24, 2002        

The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.

---

QuickLinks
16

A.11. Characteristics of Bank Loans to Farmers -- All Banks, by Risk Rating, May 3-7, 2004Percent except as notedLoan characteristic All Minimal Low Moderate Acceptable Special Not ratVolume of loans (thousands of dollars) 1,404,564 89,739 164,223 420,202 312,073 50,595 51,30Number of loans 39,705 3,404 6,945 15,867 6,437 1,514 1,72Weighted average maturity (months)1 21.58 25.32 21.91 22.28 25.23 6.38 12.7

Weighted average repricing interval (months)2 5.49 15.18 8.95 5.24 2.71 .79 5.Weighted average risk rating3 3.07 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 nWeighted average interest rate4 5.29 5.77 5.73 5.37 4.65 5.60 5. Standard error5 .15 .29 .14 .25 .28 .53 .5 Interquartile range6 75th percentile 6.18 6.61 6.75 6.54 5.51 6.96 6.2 25th percentile 4.07 4.86 4.60 4.07 3.56 4.33 3. Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 4.86 4.78 5.64 4.70 4.01 4.09 6. Other livestock 5.38 3.64 4.78 6.08 4.96 5.36 6.5 Other current operating expenses7 5.48 6.32 6.21 5.66 4.52 5.97 5.

 Farm machinery and equipment 5.43 6.73 5.85 5.36 4.52 8.38 7.0 Farm real estate 5.76 5.35 5.84 6.28 5.24 6.00 6.0 Other8 4.81 4.55 4.74 4.06 5.09 4.76 4.2

Share of total loan volume Features of loan Floating rates 76.85 42.78 48.52 77.56 91.40 92.02 57. Under commitment 76.28 39.36 66.03 76.39 91.34 83.25 69.5 Callable 19.78 17.25 29.44 22.11 8.63 2.17 28. Subject to prepayment penalty 3.44 19.52 1.18 2.25 5.44 3.47 1.0 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 5.30 1.27 4.65 4.86 6.55 8.39 1. Other livestock 6.82 4.95 16.65 6.16 6.48 9.27 3.4 Other current operating expenses7 46.13 48.91 53.06 54.77 57.99 62.23 25.

 Farm machinery and equipment 5.62 3.07 6.02 8.94 6.67 2.27 8.2 Farm real estate 9.48 40.42 9.00 7.47 3.36 .58 14.2 Other8 26.64 1.39 10.62 17.80 18.95 17.27 46.7

 Type of collateral Farm real estate 17.86 44.28 24.49 13.06 15.88 14.21 15.4 Other 78.63 49.10 72.15 81.38 81.10 84.54 79.4 For explanation of footnotes, see table A.8. n.a. Not available.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1842 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1842

To reinstate the authority of the Federal Communications Commission and 
     local franchising authorities to regulate the rates for cable 
                          television service.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 15, 2001

Mr. Frank (for himself and Mr. McGovern) introduced the following bill; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To reinstate the authority of the Federal Communications Commission and 
     local franchising authorities to regulate the rates for cable 
                          television service.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    The Act may be cited as the ``Cable Consumer Rights Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL.

    Subsection (b) of section 301 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 
is repealed.

SEC. 3 REINSTATEMENT OF PRIOR LAW.

    Section 623 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 543) shall 
be effective as if section 301(b) of the Telecommunications Act of 1934 
had not been enacted.

SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The provisions of this Act shall be effective 90 days after the 
date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Thomas Trupiano

v. Civil No. 09-cv-69-PB

Cottage Hospital

O R D E R

Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted,

but pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as amended, the filing fee must

be paid as follows: the sum of $1.20 is due no later than April

13, 2009. In addition, 20% of each preceding month’s income

credited to plaintiff’s account is to be remitted by the NH State

Prison for Men when the amount in the account exceeds $10.00

until the sum of $350.00 has been paid. Failure to pay the fee

as ordered will result in dismissal of the action without

prejudice. In all other respects plaintiff’s request for in

forma pauperis has been granted. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: March 13, 2009

cc: Thomas Trupiano, pro se

 Bonnie S. Reed, Financial Administrator

 NH State Prison for Men, Inmate Accounts

Case 1:09-cv-00069-PB Document 5 Filed 03/13/09 Page 1 of 1
| Period | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Total |
|--------|----|----|----|----|-------|
| 1981   | 1  | 0  | 0  | 0  | 1     |
| 1982   | 2  | 3  | 3  | 3  | 11    |
| 1983   | 1  | 1  | 2  | 3  | 7     |
| 1984   | 3  | 7  | 10 | 12 | 32    |
| 1985   | 12 | 21 | 17 | 18 | 68    |
| 1986   | 14 | 14 | 21 | 16 | 65    |
| 1987   | 22 | 19 | 12 | 16 | 69    |
| 1988   | 11 | 6  | 12 | 7  | 36    |
| 1989   | 5  | 7  | 5  | 5  | 22    |
| 1990   | 3  | 5  | 6  | 3  | 17    |
| 1991   | 2  | 2  | 3  | 1  | 8     |
| 1992   | 1  | 1  | 1  | 4  | 7     |
| 1993   | 1  | 2  | 2  | 0  | 5     |
| 1994   | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0     |
| 1995   | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0     |
| 1996   | 0  | 2  | 0  | 0  | 2     |
| 1997   | 0  | 0  | 0  | 1  | 1     |
| 1998   | 0  | 0  | 1  | 0  | 1     |
| 1999   | 0  | 1  | 0  | 0  | 1     |
| 2000   | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0     |
| 2001   | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0     |
| 2002   | 1  | 0  | 0  | 1  | 2     |
| 2003   | 0  | 1  | 0  | 0  | 1     |
| 2004   | 0  | 1  | 0  | 0  | 1     |
| 2005   | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0     |
| 2006   | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0  | .     |
| 2007   | 0  | 0  | 0  | 0  | .     |
| 2008   | 1  | 0  | 0  | .  | .     |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-192-01-SM

Ligia Veda

O R D E R

Defendant Veda’s motion to continue the final pretrial conference and trial

is granted (document 11). Trial has been rescheduled for the February 2008

trial period. Defendant Veda shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights not later

than October 29, 2007. On the filing of such waiver, her continuance shall be

effective. 

The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Final Pretrial Conference: February 22, 2008 at 10:00 a..m. 

Jury Selection: March 4, 2008 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:07-cr-00192-SM Document 15 Filed 10/17/07 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

October 17, 2007 

cc: Jorel Booker, Esq.

Mark Zuckerman, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00192-SM Document 15 Filed 10/17/07 Page 2 of 2
H. R. 1906

One Hundred Seventh Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the twenty-third day of January, two thousand and two

An Act

To amend the Act that established the Pu‘uhonua O Honaunau National Historical

Park to expand the boundaries of that park.

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 ‘‘Pu‘uhonua o Ho ̄naunau National

Historical Park Addition Act of 2002’’.

SEC. 2. ADDITIONS TO PU‘UHONUA O HO ̄ NAUNAU NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK.

The first section of the Act of July 26, 1955 (69 Stat. 376,

ch. 385; 16 U.S.C. 397), is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘That, when’’ and inserting the following:

‘‘SECTION 1. (a) When’’; and

(2) by adding at the end thereof the following new subsections:

‘‘(b) The boundaries of Pu‘uhonua o Ho ̄naunau National Historical Park are hereby modified to include approximately 238 acres

of lands and interests therein within the area identified as ‘Parcel

A’ on the map entitled ‘Pu‘uhonua o Ho ̄naunau National Historical

Park Proposed Boundary Additions, Ki‘ilae Village’, numbered

PUHO–P 415/82,013 and dated May, 2001.

‘‘(c) The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to acquire

approximately 159 acres of lands and interests therein within the

area identified as ‘Parcel B’ on the map referenced in subsection

(b). Upon the acquisition of such lands or interests therein, the

Secretary shall modify the boundaries of Pu‘uhonua o Ho ̄naunau

National Historical Park to include such lands or interests therein.’’.
H. R. 1906—2

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may

be necessary to carry out this Act.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qof BPZ Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended September 30,2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Edward G. Caminos, as Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to and solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, tothe best of my knowledge and belief, that:

 

(1)  The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2)  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
| */s/ Edward G. Caminos* | * * |
|-------------------------|----------|
| Edward G. Caminos       |     |
| Chief Financial Officer |     |
| November 9, 2009   |     |

 

----
#### Alida De Jesus MARTINEZ-ARGUETA, Petitioner, v. John D. ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 02-70580.

INS No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 10, 2003.*

Decided March 14, 2003.

*374Before 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).

MEMORANDUM**

Alida de Jesus Martinez-Argueta, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) dismissal of her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. *See Kalaw v. INS,*133 F.3d 1147, 1149-50 (9th Cir.1997). We review for substantial evidence and will reverse the BIA’s determination only if the petitioner shows that the evidence compels such a result. *Sangha v. INS,*103 F.3d 1482, 1487 (9th Cir.1997). We deny the petition.

Contrary to Martinez-Argueta’s contention, the BIA adequately articulated its reasons for denying her asylum application by explicitly agreeing with the IJ’s reasoning. *See Alaelua v. INS,*45 F.3d 1379, 1382 (9th Cir.1995). That reasoning was supported by substantial evidence because the harassment Martinez-Argueta allegedly received from guerillas on account of her husband’s employment by the government was limited to a single arson incident that did not result in any harm to her or her husband. Martinez-Argueta also alleged vague and unfulfilled threats against her husband, but these incidents do not compel a fact-finder to conclude that such treatment rose to the level of persecution. *See Lim v. INS,*224 F.3d 929, 936 (9th Cir.2000) (holding that threats standing alone generally do not constitute past persecution).

Martinez-Argueta’s fear of future persecution is not objectively well-founded because she did not adduce “credible, direct, and specific evidence in the record, of facts that would support a reasonable fear of persecution.” *Arriaga-Barrientos v. INS,*937 F.2d 411, 413 (9th Cir.1991). In addition, the subjective basis of Martinez-Argueta’s fear is undermined by her admission that she has returned to Guatemala twice since she first arrived in the United States.

Because Martinez-Argueta failed to establish eligibility for asylum, she necessarily failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. *See Pedro-Mateo v. INS,*224 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.2000).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 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.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Joshua H. White

v. Civil No. 08-cv-121-JL

NH State Prison, Sex Offender Program et al

O R D E R

I herewith approve the Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Muirhead

dated April 9, 2009, no objection having been filed. The Stay shall be lifted and

the petition is herewith dismissed.

SO ORDERED.

May 9, 2009 _________________________________

Joseph N. Laplante

United States District Judge

cc: Joshua H. White, Pro se

Case 1:08-cv-00121-JL Document 9 Filed 05/09/09 Page 1 of 1
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.



# United States **Court of Appeals** 
**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

COASTAL INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellant

v.

SHOWER ENCLOSURES AM ERICA, INC.,

Cross

- Appellant

______________________

2019

- 1431, 2019

- 1472

______________________

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2017

- 00573.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

J OSEPH P. K INCART

, S R

. , Rogers Towers, P.A., Jacksonville, FL, argued for appellant. Also represented by T RACE
H UNTER J ACKSON ; A NDRES A RRUBLA , Coastal Industries,

Inc. , Jacksonville, FL

.

R YAN M ATTHEW F OUNTAIN

, Mishawaka, IN, argued for

cross

- appellant.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE ha ving been heard and considered, it isO RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (W ALLACH

, T ARANTO

, and C HEN

, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed . Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

January 9, 2020 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Date Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court
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 Quarterly Report of GK Intelligent Systems, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Gary F. Kimmons, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

     (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 the
         operation of the Company.

/s/ Gary F. Kimmons
____________________________________
Gary F. Kimmons
Chief Executive Officer
May 18, 2004
#### BONIDE CHEMICAL CO., Inc., v. DURHAM’S, Inc.

No. 16772.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Jan. 10, 1938.

James E. Courtin, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Yarrut & Stich, of New Orleans, for ap-pellee.

WESTERFIELD, Judge.

This is a suit on an open account in which the plaintiff seeks to recover $418.-38, the balance alleged to be due on the purchase price of certain merchandise. The defendant admits the receipt of the merchandise alleged to have been sold, but contends that it was held by it on consignment under an agreement that it would have the exclusive agency for the plaintiff’s product in the parish of Orleans and adjacent territory; that, in violation of the agreement with respect to exclusive agency, the plaintiff sold its product to customers in, competition with defendant; that it is ready to return the merchandise but that plaintiff refuses to accept it.

On the trial of the case it was clearly established that the defendant had purchased the merchandise from the plaintiff and had made a partial payment of $50 on account. It also appeared that sales aggregating $54 were made by plaintiff in the territory allotted to defendant and that defendant would háve made a profit on these sales of $11.

There was judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $418.38, subject to a credit of $54, conditioned upon defendant returning to plaintiff merchandise of the value of $43.

In our opinion the judgment is correct.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.