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
consolidated balance sheet, consolidated statement of operation and consolidated
statement of cash flows included in the Company's Form 10-Q for the period
ending June 30, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           1,163
<SECURITIES>                                     6,265
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,975
<ALLOWANCES>                                       472
<INVENTORY>                                         27
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                24,755
<PP&E>                                           7,341
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,217
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  43,342
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,585
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            52
<OTHER-SE>                                      34,025
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    43,342
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                22,281
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   15,718
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,637
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (173)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,902)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,238)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,664)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,664)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.74)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.74)



</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6120

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

REGINA VENGOECHEA,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. Margaret B. Seymour, District

Judge. (CR-99-98, CA-01-3832)

Submitted: March 14, 2002 Decided: March 28, 2002

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Regina Vengoechea, Appellant Pro Se. Arthur Bradley Parham, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Florence, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Regina Vengoechea appeals from the district court’s order

giving her notice, under Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th

Cir. 1975), that the Government had moved to summarily dismiss her

motion for a reduction of sentence. We dismiss the appeal for lack

of jurisdiction because the order giving Vengoechea Roseboro notice

is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over

final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory

and collateral orders. 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P.

54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949).

The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable

interlocutory or collateral order.

We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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.

DISMISSED
#### Moore *v.*W. J. Gilmore Drug Company, Appellant.

Argued April 27, 1938.

Before Kellee, P. J., Cunningham, Baldeige, Stadteeld, Paekee, and Rhodes, JJ.

Before Lenchee, J., without a jury.

*350June 29, 1988:

*Albert G. Kirsch,*with him *Watson & Freeman,*for appellant.

*Gyrus A. Davis,*for appellee.

Opinion by

Keller, P. J.,

This action of trespass was tried by a judge without a jury. He found for the defendant, and entered judgment accordingly. Plaintiff moved for a new trial and for judgment non obstante veredicto in his favor. The court in banc discharged the rule for a new trial but entered judgment non obstante veredicto in favor of the plaintiff for $667.85, the trial judge dissenting. The judgment must be reversed.

When a case is tried by a judge without a jury, the trial judge takes the place of the jury and his finding on the facts has the force and effect of the verdict of a jury. The court in banc has no fact-finding powers in such a case any more than it has in a jury trial. The authority to *try*the case does not extend to the court in banc. It is limited to the trial judge. If there is evidence in the record to support the trial judge’s finding and judgment thereon the court in banc cannot enter judgment non obstante veredicto in favor of the other party. The most that it can do is to grant a new trial.

In the present case, the testimony in the record might have supported a finding of negligence on the part of the defendant, which would have sustained a verdict for the plaintiff if he had been free from contributory negligence. It also supports a finding that the plaintiff himself was negligent, and if the trier of fact so found, *351it warranted judgment for the defendant. The trial judge did so find and the court in banc was without authority to enter judgment non obstante veredicto in favor of the plaintiff. The record *at the close of the trial*determines the right of the court to enter judgment non obstante veredicto under the Act of April 22, 1905, P. L. 286; *Ozanich v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.,*119 Pa. Superior Ct. 52, 55, 180 A. 67; *Ellsworth v. Husband,*119 Pa. Superior Ct. 245, 253, 181 A. 90; *Lessy v. Great A. & P. Tea Co.,*121 Pa. Superior Ct. 440, 444, ,183 A. 657; *Dalmas ,v. Kemble,*215 Pa. 410, 412, 64 A. 559. A directed verdict for the plaintiff would not have been warranted at the close of the trial in this case. His contributory negligence was a question of fact for the trial judge to determine.

The judgment is reversed and is here entered for the defendant.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6811

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CORY WILLIAM JONES,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, 

District Judge. (1:05-cr-00249-MR-DLH-1; 1:09-cv-00056-MR)

Submitted: August 16, 2012 Decided: August 21, 2012

Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cory William Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Jill Westmoreland Rose, OFFICE 

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Cory William Jones seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of 

the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) 

(2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court 

denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the 

denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Jones has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit
32.1





Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.§ 1350)




The
undersigned, the chief executive officer of Span-America Medical Systems, Inc.
(the “Company”), certifies that to the best of his knowledge: (1) the Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the period ended September 27, 2008 (the “Annual
Report”), which accompanies this certification fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and (2) the information contained in the Annual Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods
indicated.





The
foregoing certification is made solely for purposes of § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350) and no person shall be
entitled to rely upon the foregoing certification for any other
purpose.  The undersigned expressly disclaims any obligation to update
the foregoing certification except as required by law.





/s/
      James D. FergusonJames
      D. FergusonPresident
      and Chief Executive
Officer





Date:  December
23, 2008









Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.§ 1350)




The
undersigned, the chief financial officer of Span-America Medical Systems, Inc.
(the “Company”), certifies that to the best of his knowledge: (1) the Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 27, 2008 (the “Annual Report”),
which accompanies this certification fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and (2) the information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company at the dates and for the periods indicated.





The
foregoing certification is made solely for purposes of § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350) and no person shall be
entitled to rely upon the foregoing certification for any other
purpose.  The undersigned expressly disclaims any obligation to update
the foregoing certification except as required by law.





/s/ Richard C. CogginsRichard C. CogginsChief
      Financial Officer





Date:  December
23, 2008
Case 1:11-cv-02382-LTB-KLM Document 9 Filed 10/18/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-02382-LTB-KLM Document 9 Filed 10/18/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-02382-LTB-KLM Document 9 Filed 10/18/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-02382-LTB-KLM Document 9 Filed 10/18/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

Pursuant to the provisions of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that at 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday, October 7, 2008, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's Board of Directors will meet in closed session, pursuant to section 552b(c)(2), (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (9)(A)(ii), and (9)(B) of Title 5, United States Code, to consider matters relating to the Corporation's supervisory and corporate activities. 

The meeting will be held in the Board Room on the sixth floor of the FDIC Building located at 550 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC. 

Requests for further information concerning the meeting may be directed to Mr. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary of the Corporation, at (202) 898-7043. 

Dated: September 30, 2008. 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. 

Robert E. Feldman, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E8-23493 Filed 10-2-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 195 (Tuesday, October 7, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 58631]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23637]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration


Notice of a Change in Status of an Extended Benefit (EB) Period 
for Alaska

AGENCY: Employment and Training Administration, Labor.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a change in benefit period eligibility 
under the EB Program for Alaska.
    The following change has occurred since the publication of the last 
notice regarding the State's EB status:
    <bullet> Based on data reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics 
on September 19, 2008, Alaska triggered ``off'' EB. Alaska's 3-month 
total unemployment rate for June, July and August fell to 109% of the 
prior year and 106% of the second prior year for the same period. This 
causes Alaska to be triggered ``off'' an EB period. After the week 
ending October 11, 2008, workers who exhaust their regular UI benefits 
will no longer be eligible to collect up to an additional 13 weeks of 
UI benefits under this program.

Information for Claimants

    The duration of benefits payable in the EB Program, and the terms 
and conditions on which they are payable, are governed by the Federal-
State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970, as amended, and 
the operating instructions issued to the states by the U.S. Department 
of Labor. In the case of a state ending an EB period, the State 
Workforce Agency will furnish a written notice to each individual who 
is currently filing a claim for EB of the forthcoming end of the EB 
period and its effect on the individual's rights to EB (20 CFR 
615.13(c)(4)).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Gibbons, U.S. Department of 
Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Office of Workforce 
Security, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Frances Perkins Bldg., Room S-
4231, Washington, DC 20210, telephone number (202) 693-3008 (this is 
not a toll-free number) or by e-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2b4c424949444558055848445f5f6b4f4447054c445d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7c1b151e1e13120f520f1f1308083c181310521b130a">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 29th day of September, 2008.
Brent R. Orrell,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Employment and Training.
 [FR Doc. E8-23637 Filed 10-6-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FW-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 

Daniel E . Ayer, Sr. 

v. 

Case No. 07-cv-304-SM 

Richard Gerry, Warden, New Hampshire 

State Prison 

O R D E R 

After due consideration of the objection filed, I herewith 

approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Andrea K. 

Johnstone dated July 7, 2014, for the reasons set forth therein. 

Petitioner’s Motion to withdraw and forego the unexhausted 

claims, which are numbered 2(a) – 2(h) in the April 25, 2014 Order, 

is granted (doc. no. 56) . This case will proceed on petitioner’s 

Claims 1-9. The respondent shall file an answer to the amended 

petition, as to Claims 1-9, within thirty days of this order. The 

respondent shall file either (a) a summary judgment motion pursuant 

to LR 7.4, or (b) a statement representing that an evidentiary hearing 

is necessary to resolve disputed issues of material fact within sixty 

days of serving its answer. 

SO ORDERED. 

Stafven J./McAuliffe 

United States District Judge 

Case 1:07-cv-00304-SM Document 60 Filed 07/30/14 Page 1 of 2
Date: July 30, 2014 

cc: Daniel E . Ayer, Sr., pro se 

Susan P. McGinnis, Esq. 

Case 1:07-cv-00304-SM Document 60 Filed 07/30/14 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1


I, Richard Koch, Chief Executive Officer of Power Efficiency Corporation,
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that:

         1.       the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the
                  quarter ended September 30, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies
                  with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
                  Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

         2.       the information contained in the Report fairly represents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.

Date: November 14, 2003

                  BY:    /s/ Richard Koch
                         ---------------------------
                         Richard Koch
                         Chief Executive Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter
63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of a separate
disclosure document.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1810

LINDA P. WALKER, Plaintiff - Appellant, VersusSOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-96-2544-3-17BC) Submitted: August 13, 1998 Decided: August 31, 1998 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Linda P. Walker, Appellant Pro Se. Hardwick Stuart, Jr., WilliamKenneth Witherspoon, Claude E. Hardin, Jr., BERRY, ADAMS QUACKENBUSH & DUNBAR, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Appellant appeals the district court’s order granting Appellee’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing Appellant’s claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 621 (1994) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA),42 U.S.C. § 1201 (1994). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Appellee’s motion to dismiss and affirm on the reasoning of thedistrict court. Walker v. South Carolina Dep’t of Health & Environmental Control , No. CA-96-2544-3-17BC (D.S.C. May 6, 1998). 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.

AFFIRMED
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report onForm 10-QSB of World Heart Corporation (the “Corporation”) for the quarterended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, David Pellone, VicePresident, Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Corporation, herebycertifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

 

(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 Corporation as of September 30, 2007.

 
| Dated:  November 13, 2007 | /s/  *David Pellone                           |
|--------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|
|                           | David  Pellone, Vice President, Finance       |
|                           | and  Chief Financial Officer                  |
|                           | (Principal  Financial and Accounting Officer) |

 

----

*******                **A signed original of this written statement requiredby section 906 has been provided to the Corporation and will be retainedby the Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission orits staff upon request.

 

 

----
1 “[#52]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a specific paper by

the court’s electronic case filing and management system (CM/ECF). I use this convention throughout this order.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Robert E. Blackburn

Civil Case No. 11-cv-02239-REB-KMT

(Consolidated with Civil Action No. 11-cv-02361-REB-KMT

EDIE GARCIA, and

NICHOLE WITTER-GORTNER,

Plaintiffs,

v.

HOTEL POWERS, INC., d/b/a Hampton Inn,

Defendant.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Blackburn, J. 

The matter is before me on the Stipulation For Dismissal With Prejudice [#52]1

 filed

April 16, 2013. After reviewing the stipulation and the record, I conclude that the stipulation

should be approved, and that this action should be dismissed with prejudice, with each party to

pay its own costs and fees.

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. That the Stipulation For Dismissal With Prejudice [#52] filed April 16, 2013, is

APPROVED; and

2. That this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE with the parties to pay their own

attorney fees and costs. 

Dated April 16, 2013, at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

Case 1:11-cv-02361-REB-KMT Document 11 Filed 04/16/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1