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-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           4,504
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,889
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,071
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                16,464
<PP&E>                                         132,699
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,792
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 149,163
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,673
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,416
<OTHER-SE>                                     133,074
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   149,163
<SALES>                                         62,629
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                62,629
<CGS>                                           28,302
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   28,302
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                22,640
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,687
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,687
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .004
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .004
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                           4,832
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,267
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,272
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                22,413
<PP&E>                                          79,967
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,847
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 126,871
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,549
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            35
<OTHER-SE>                                      49,722
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   126,871
<SALES>                                         18,465
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                18,465
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   21,863
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 423
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,706)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         3
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,709)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,709)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.18)


</TABLE>
#### In re ESTATE of Thomas Jefferson JAMES, Deceased. Marjory James LARSEN, Appellant, v. Susie JAMES, Administratrix of the Estate of Thomas Jefferson James, Deceased, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division A.

Jan. 21, 1955.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 22, 1955.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
**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**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of World HeartCorporation (the “Corporation”) for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),the undersigned, John A. Martin, President and Chief Executive Officer of theCorporation, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that tohis knowledge:

 

(1) TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and

 

(2) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Corporation as of June 30,2010.

 
| Dated:   August 11, 2010 | /s/ J. Alex Martin                                     |
|------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|
|                               | J.  Alex Martin, President and Chief Executive Officer |
|                               | (Principal  Executive Officer)                         |

 

“Thiscertification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemedfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporatedby reference into any filing of the Corporation under the Securities Act of1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whethermade before or after the date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of anygeneral incorporation language contained in such filing.”

 

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Philip A. Brimmer

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01952-PAB

GRENADA, 

Plaintiff,

v.

RACHEL S. GRYNBERG, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s Motion to Authorize Garnishee to

Return Funds to Defendant [Docket No. 19]. The Court having reviewed plaintiff’s

motion, it is 

ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion to Authorize Garnishee to Return Funds to

Defendant [Docket No. 19] is GRANTED. It is further

ORDERED that garnishee U.S. Bank shall return funds in the amount of

$303,921.69 it is holding pursuant to a Writ of Garnishment with Notice of Exemption

and Pending Levy to defendant Miriam Z. Grynberg.

DATED October 27, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

 s/Philip A. Brimmer 

PHILIP A. BRIMMER

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-01952-PAB Document 25 Filed 10/27/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
#### Fred AARONSON and David Grossberg, Appellants, v. MAMMY’S, Inc., Sam Schwartz, Meyer Yedlin, Wolford Cohen, One Lincoln Road, Inc., a Florida Corporation, and 21st and Collins Corp., a Florida Corporation, Appellees.

Supreme Court of Florida. Special Division B.

Nov. 5, 1954.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 29, 1954.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
No. 98-51092 -1-

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-51092 Summary Calendar

MANUEL GOMEZ HERNANDEZ, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus GARY L. JOHNSON, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, Respondent-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. MO-98-CV-1

-------------------- March 22, 2000 Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Manuel Gomez Hernandez (TDCJ # 539907) was granted a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s

sua sponte dismissal of his habeas corpus petition as procedurally barred. Although the Respondent had argued in the district court that Hernandez’s petition was successive within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b), the district court relied on our holding in In re Gasery , 116 F.3d 1051, 1052 (5th Cir. 1997), and determined that the petition was not successive becauseNo. 98-51092 -2- Hernandez’s prior petition had been dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state-court remedies. The Respondent argues that because the district court’s conclusion was in error, this court lacks jurisdiction over the present cause. We reject the Respondent’s argument because it ignores the fact that this court remanded to the district court an unexhausted claim so that it could either be dismissed as unexhausted or addressed on the merits. Thus, when the district court subsequently dismissed the petition for failure to exhaust, it was in the same procedural posture as that in Gasery , 116 F.3d at 1052. Proceeding to the merits, Hernandez argues that the district court erred by dismissing his petition as procedurally barred.
Our de novo review of the dismissal reveals no reversible error by the district court. See Magouirk v. Phillips , 144 F.3d 348, 359 (5th Cir. 1998); Fearance v. Scott , 56 F.3d 633, 637 (5th Cir. 1995).
AFFIRMED.
Case 1:08-cv-00485-JL   Document 6   Filed 12/30/08   Page 1 of 1
Opinion issued February 13 , 202 4

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 23 - 00150 - CR

——————————— EX PARTE ANDRE RICARDO BAILEY
On Appeal from the 268th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 19 - DCR - 088627
MEMORANDU M OPINION Andre Ricardo Bail e y , acting pro se, attempts to appeal the trial court’s denial of his “Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus Requesting Dismissal of Indictment in Violation of Due Process Right to Examining Trial.” We affirm. On September 9, 2019, the grand jury returned an indictment again st Baily for the felony offense of burglary of habitation. Bailey filed an application for writ of2

habeas corpus on January 30, 2023, seeking dismissal of the indictment on the basis that he did not receive an examining trial. The habeas a pplication was de nied on February 15, 2023. Bailey filed a notice of appeal on February 24, 2023 , challenging the denial of his habeas application
. Concerning Bailey ’s assertion that he failed to receive an examining trial, the code of criminal procedure provides, in relev ant part: “The accused in any felony case shall have the right to an examining trial before indictment ....” T EX . C ODE C RIM . P ROC . art. 16.01 (emphasis added). At the time Bailey filed his application for writ of habeas corpus, he had already been indicted years before and, therefore, no longer had “a right” to an examining trial. See id
. Under well

- established law, “the return of an indictment terminates any right to an examining trial.” State ex rel. Holmes v. Salinas , 784 S.W.2d 421, 427 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990) (orig. proceeding). Accordingly, we affirm the order denying Bailey ’s habeas application. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Landau and Rivas

- Molloy
. Do not publish. T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.2(b).
#### PEARSON v. HIGGINBOTHAM.

Supreme Court of Florida.

January Term 1954.

Dismissed without opinion.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 

United States of America 

v. Criminal No. 03-cr-132-SM 

Christopher Langill 

ORDE R 

On June 16, 2 011, the defendant appeared for a "probable 

cause" hearing under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1 on seven (7) alleged 

violations of conditions of supervision contained in the 

superceding petition. The defendant stipulated to probable cause 

on the violations, which was approved by the court. 

At the hearing, the defendant requested to be released on 

conditions of bail under Rule 32.1(a)(6). Under Rule 32.1(a)(6), 

the defendant bears the burden of establishing by clear and 

convincing evidence that he will not flee and that he poses no 

danger to any other person or to the community. For the reasons 

more stated on the hearing record, the court finds the defendant 

has failed to meet this burden and that there are no conditions 

which are likely to assure his appearance and the safety of the 

community. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the defendant be detained 

pending a final revocation hearing. 

Case 1:03-cr-00132-SM Document 73 Filed 06/16/11 Page 1 of 2
The defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney 

General or his designated representative for confinement in a 

corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, from 

persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody 

pending appeal. The defendant shall be afforded a reasonable 

opportunity for private consultation with defense counsel. On 

order of a court of the United States or on request of an 

attorney for the government, the person in charge of the 

corrections facility shall deliver the defendant to the United 

States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection 

with a court proceeding. 

SO ORDERED. 

Daniel iX L} 

United St^fee^ Magistrate Judge 

Date: June 16, 2011 

cc: Alfred J.T. Rubega, AUSA 

James P. 0'Rourke , Jr., Esq. 

U.S. Marshal 

U.S. Probation 

2 

Case 1:03-cr-00132-SM Document 73 Filed 06/16/11 Page 2 of 2
ovlGINAL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 20-0416

ANNELIES AIKING-TAYLOR,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

OLIVER SERANG,

Defendant and Appellee.

F I D

OEC 2 9 2020

Bovven Greenwood

Clerk of Supreme Court

State nf Montana

ORDER

The Appellant in this matter has moved this Court for an extension ()Hine in which to

file her Reply Brief. Appellee does not object. Upon review of Appelkint.J motion. thc

Court finds good cause exists for Appellant's requested extension.

IT IS ORDERED that Appellant's Reply Brief in this matter is now due on or before

February 3, 2020. No further extensions will be granted.

DATED this 29th day of December, 2020.

Chief Justice

12/29/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0416
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

# **CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002**

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§1350 (as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, theundersigned Chief Executive Officer of Arctic Cat Inc. (the “Company”), herebycertify that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annualperiod ended March 31, 2004 (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

A signed originalof this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to theCompany and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or itsstaff upon request.

 

 

Date: June 14, 2004

 
|   | /s/ Christopher  A. Twomey             |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Christopher  A. Twomey,                |
|   | President  and Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
**Exhibit 23**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT**

**CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS**

 

The Board of Directors 

First Oak Brook Bancshares, Inc.: 

 

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registrationstatements (Nos. 33-24145, 33-82800, 333-75025, 333-89647, 333-81388 and 333-87978) on Form S-8 of First Oak Brook Bancshares, Inc. of our report dated February 18, 2003, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of First Oak Brook Bancshares,Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2002, and 2001, and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in shareholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2002, which reportappears in the December 31, 2002, annual report on Form 10-K of First Oak Brook Bancshares, Inc. 

 

 

/s/ KPMG, LLP 

 

 

March 25, 2003
Appendix H

INFORMATION REGARDING

SPECIAL ASSIGNMENTS

See D.C.COLO.LCivR 40.1

Case number of action being filed:

Case number of claimed related pending case in this court: 11-mj-01126-BNB 

 . 

Judge assigned to claimed related case: Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland 

Type of action of claimed related case: Criminal Complaint 

 

Status of claimed related pending case: Pending - under seal 

 

State reasons the new case is claimed to be related to a pending case(s): Same facts and

individuals involved in both cases 

s/ Richard L. Hathaway Plaintiff 

Assistant U.S. Attorney Party

August 11, 2011 

Date

(Rev. 11/04)

Case No. 1:11-cv-02106-PAB-CBS Document 1-3 filed 08/11/11 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 1
**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 The Dress Barn, Inc. (“the Company”) on
        Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended July 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities
        and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (“the Report”), I, Armand Correia,
        Senior Vice President and Chief Financial 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, to the best of my knowledge that:
 
 (1)
              The
                  Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
                  15(d) of
                  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
                  78o(d)); 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
        foregoing certification is provided solely for purposes of complying with
        the
        provisions of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not intended
        to be used for any other purpose.
 
 
  /s/
        ARMAND CORREIA
 Armand
        Correia
 Senior
        Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
 October
        12, 2005
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-2379

VALENTIN ALEXANDROVICH KHOROSHKOV,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals.

Submitted: April 12, 2013 Decided: April 23, 2013

Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

H. Glenn Fogle, Jr., THE FOGLE LAW FIRM, LLC, Atlanta, Georgia, 

for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Principal Deputy Assistant 

Attorney General, Shelley R. Goad, Assistant Director, Elizabeth 

R. Chapman, Trial Attorney, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Valentin Alexandrovich Khoroshkov, a native and 

citizen of Kazakhstan, petitions for review of an order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal 

from the immigration judge’s decision denying his requests for 

asylum and withholding of removal. We have thoroughly reviewed 

the record, including the various documentary exhibits relevant 

to country conditions in Kazakhstan, the transcript of 

Khoroshkov’s merits hearing, and Khoroshkov’s supporting 

affidavit and evidence. We conclude that the record evidence 

does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the Board’s factual 

findings, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006), and that 

substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision. See INS v. 

Elias–Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Accordingly, we deny 

the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. 

See In re: Khoroshkov (B.I.A. Oct. 11, 2012). 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
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 99.2

March 5, 2003

Factory Card & Party Outlet Corp.
2727 Diehl Road
Naperville, Illinois 60563

We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited interim financial
information of Factory Card & Party Outlet Corp. and subsidiary for the three
month and seven month periods ended November 2, 2002 (Successor Company
operations), and the two month period ended April 6, 2002 (Predecessor Company
operations); as indicated in our report dated December 9, 2002 (March 5, 2003 as
to the effect of the restatement described in Note 10) because we did not
perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended November 2, 2002, is
incorporated by reference in Registration Statement No. 36-3652087 on Form S-8.

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under
the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration
Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or
certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
Chicago, Illinois
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02441-REB-BNB

ISADORE BROWN,

Plaintiff,

v.

DENVER POLICE OFFICERS GARCIA,

ROMAN YEPSHIN,

SERGEY GUREVICH,

DETECTIVE JOEY SMITH, and

CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, jointly and severally,

Defendants.

______________________________________________________________________________

MINUTE ORDER

______________________________________________________________________________

Minute Order Entered by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland

This matter is before the Court on the Defendants’ Motion For Leave to File a Reply in

Support of [42] Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b)

[docket no. 52, filed October 1, 2012] (the “Motion”).

IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff shall reply to the Motion on or before October 5,

2012.

DATED: October 1, 2012

Case 1:11-cv-02441-REB-BNB Document 54 Filed 10/01/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

134111(31) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 134111 

 COA: 275110 

Grand Traverse CC: 02-009046-FC 

JONATHAN DOUGLAS BURKE,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s September 

24, 2007 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order 

was entered erroneously. 

p1119 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

November 29, 2007 

 Clerk
Case 1:11-cv-01764-PAB-KMT Document 8 Filed 07/15/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
Case 1:11-cv-01764-PAB-KMT Document 8 Filed 07/15/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2