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
INTRAWARE, INC. FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED AUGUST 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-2000
<CASH>                                          22,159
<SECURITIES>                                     6,969
<RECEIVABLES>                                   26,637
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,106
<INVENTORY>                                      1,984
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                77,819
<PP&E>                                          21,704
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,544
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 129,922
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           51,258
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     13,023
<COMMON>                                             3
<OTHER-SE>                                      52,990
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   129,922
<SALES>                                         62,615
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                62,615
<CGS>                                           54,443
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   43,321
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   111
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              (23,409)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 111
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (23,331)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        78
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (23,409)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (23,409)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 13**
**CERTIFICATION**
     The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection withthe annual report of Millea Holdings, Inc. on Form 20-F for the year endedMarch 31, 2004 (the “Report”) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b)or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”)and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.
     Kunio Ishihara, the principal executive officer, and Tomohiro Kotani, theprincipal financial officer, of Millea Holdings, Inc., each certifies that, tothe best of his knowledge:
     1.     the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
     2.     the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of MilleaHoldings, Inc.
Date: September 28, 2004       By: /s/ KUNIO ISHIHARA
#### The State, ex rel. Price, *v.*Industrial Commission of Ohio et al.

(No. 25167

Decided April 17, 1935.)

*Mr. Franhlyn E. Stearns,*for relatrix.

*Mr. John W. Briclter,*attorney general, and *Mr. B. B. Zurmehly,*for the Industrial Commission.

*Messrs. M. B. S H. E. Johnson,*for The Corrigan, McKinney Steel Company.

*Mr. Emmett P. Dowling*and *Mr. James A. Farrell,*for Florence C. Price, guardian.

The relatrix asks a peremptory writ of mandamus to compel the respondent to divide a $6500.00 death benefit award equally among the relatrix and two *317others, all of whom were total dependents of the decedent, Clarence Price.

No abuse of discretion is claimed.

The whole contention of the relatrix is that under the provisions of Section 1465-83, the respondent, the Industrial Commission, is vested with no authority except to make' an equal division of an award among those totally dependent upon the decedent.

The pertinent part of that section reads as follows:

> “The benefits in case of death, shall be paid to such one or more of the dependents of the decedent, for the benefit of all the dependents as may be determined by the industrial commission of Ohio, which may apportion the benefits among the dependents in such manner as it may deem just and equitable * * *. ’ ’

The court is of the view that this language is clear and unambiguous, and that there is nothing to the contrary in the context to prevent the Industrial Commission from apportioning “the benefits among the dependents in such manner as it may deem just and equitable.”

On consideration whereof it is ordered and adjudged that the demurrer of the Industrial Commission to the petition of the relatrix be, and the same hereby is, sustained, and, upon the issues raised by the pleadings, the writ of mandamus is denied.

*Writ denied.*

Wbygandt, C. J., Stephenson, Williams, Matthias, Day and Zimmerman, JJ., concur.

3ones, J., not participating.
#### STATE ex rel. HODKIN v. PERRY.

Supreme Court of Florida.

January Term 1954.

Dismissed without opinion.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 8, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-41413

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUAN ISRAEL CORTEZ-BERTIS,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:05-CR-597-ALL

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

Before KING, GARWOOD, and JOLLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Juan Israel

Cortez-Bertis raises arguments that are foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held

that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a

separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary

affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1429 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1429

 To amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to reauthorize the provision of 
          technical assistance to small public water systems.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 17, 2007

 Mr. Inhofe (for himself, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Craig, Mr. Thomas, and Mr. 
    Warner) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to reauthorize the provision of 
          technical assistance to small public water systems.

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

SECTION 1. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

    Section 1442(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300j-
1(e)) is amended in the fifth sentence by striking ``1997 through 
2003'' and inserting ``2008 through 2012''.
                                 <all>
```
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 6724

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. STEPHEN D. SATCHER , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. Deborah K. Chasanow , Senior District Judge. ( 8:00

- cr - 00105

- DKC

- 1 ; 8:18

- cv - 2946

- DKC )

Submitted : August 20, 2019 Decided: August 23, 2019

Before FLOYD and RUSHING , Circuit Judges , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Stephen D. Satcher , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Stephen D. Satcher seeks to appeal the district court’s order s dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and denying reconsideration . The order s

are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demon strating 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 co urt 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 ind ependently reviewed the record and conclude that Satcher has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Satcher’s motion for a certificate of appealability and to remand , and we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 96-3488EM

_____________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Eastern

v. * District of Missouri.

*

Adam C. Risch, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

_____________

 Submitted: March 5, 1997

 Filed: March 11, 1997

_____________

Before McMILLIAN, FAGG, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

In an earlier appeal, we affirmed Adam C. Risch’s drug conviction but

remanded to permit the district court to consider whether Risch’s sentence

should be reduced under an amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines. United

States v. Risch, 87 F.3d 240, 243-44 (8th Cir. 1996). On remand, the

district court sentenced Risch to the statutory minimum for an offense

involving 100 or more marijuana plants. Although Risch did not raise the

issue in his first appeal, Risch now challenges the number of marijuana

plants attributed to him. Based on Risch’s failure to raise this issue in

his original appeal, we will not consider Risch’s new claim. See United

States v. Kress, 58 F.3d 370, 373-74 (8th Cir. 1995). We overrule Risch’s

objection to the no-argument classification of this appeal.

We affirm Risch’s sentence.
-2-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
** **

**EXHIBIT32.1**

** **

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Ciprico Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-KSB for the year ended September 30, 2007 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Steven D. Merrifield,Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350,as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)           The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated:  December 26, 2007 | /s/  Steven D. Merrifield |
|--------------------------------|---------------------------|
|                           | Steven  D. Merrifield     |
|                           | Chief  Executive Officer  |
|                           |                      |

 

1

----
2012 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

7-10-2012

USA v. Keenan Quinn

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential

Docket No. 11-1733

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2012

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2012 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"USA v. Keenan Quinn" (2012). 2012 Decisions. Paper 621.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2012/621
1

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 11-1733

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

KEENAN DANAN QUINN,

 Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(Crim. No. 2-09-cr-00720-002)

District Judge: Hon. Petrese B. Tucker

Before: McKEE, Chief Judge, SLOVITER, SCIRICA, RENDELL,

AMBRO, FUENTES, SMITH , FISHER, CHAGARES, JORDAN,

HARDIMAN, GREENAWAY, JR. and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

Pursuant to Third Circuit IOP 9.2, it is hereby ORDERED that the abovecaptioned case is listed en banc at the convenience of the Court, to enable the Court to 

reconsider the “effective defense theory of judicial immunity” doctrine first established 

by this Court in Government of the Virgin Islands v. Smith, 615 F.2d 964 (3d Cir. 1980). 

The parties are directed to electronically file supplemental briefs addressing this 

issue as follows:

Appellant’s supplemental brief shall be filed within 30 days from the date 

of this order and shall not exceed 15 pages or 7, 000 words;
2

Appellee’s brief shall be filed within 30 days from the date of filing of 

appellant’s supplemental brief and shall not exceed 15 pages or 7, 000 

words;

Appellant’s reply brief shall be filed within 14 days from the date of filing 

appellee’s brief and shall not exceed 7 pages or 3,500 words.

The parties shall file 30 hard copies of the supplemental briefs. 

In addition, the parties are hereby O R D E R E D to provide the Clerk within 14 days 

from the date of this order additional 30 hard copies of the briefs and 16 copies of the 

appendices previously filed in this appeal.

BY THE COURT:

 /s/ Theodore A. McKee

Chief Judge

Dated: July 10, 2012

Tnh/cc: David L. Axelrod, Esq.

Edward C. Meehan, Jr., Esq.
Case 1:11-po-00042-GJR Document 9 Filed 12/01/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4
Case 1:11-po-00042-GJR Document 9 Filed 12/01/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4
Case 1:11-po-00042-GJR Document 9 Filed 12/01/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4
Case 1:11-po-00042-GJR Document 9 Filed 12/01/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4
817 A.2d 315

#### IN THE MATTER OF PETER A. WOOD, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

March 12, 2003.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 02-352, concluding that PETER A. WOOD of WILLIAMSTOWN, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1993, and who thereafter was suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months effective November 14, 2002, and who remains suspended at this time, should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months for violating *RPC*1.5(b)(failure to communicate in writing the basis or rate of the attorney’s fee), *RPC*1.15(b)(failure to deliver funds to which client is entitled), *RPC*5.5(a)(practicing law while ineligible) and *RPC*8.1(b)(failure to cooperate with disciplinary authorities);

And the Disciplinary Review Board having determined that the term of suspension should be concurrent with the three-month suspension ordered by the Court to be effective November 14, 2002;

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that PETER A. WOOD is suspended from the practice of law for a period of three months and until the further Order of the Court, effective November 14, 2002; and it is further

ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent continue to be restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of suspension and that respondent continue to comply with *Rule*1:20-20; and it is further

*552ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs incurred in the prosecution of this matter.
September 5, 2013



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

OSCAR RAY FIFER , Appellant

NO. 14

- 13

- 00613

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

__ ______________________________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. The record indicates that the appeal should be dismissed . The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion. We further order appel lant pay all costs expended in the appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
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 Quarterly Report of North Pittsburgh Systems, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, A. P. Kimble, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial and
Accounting 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:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 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:  November 9, 2005



/s/ A. P. KimbleA. P. KimbleSenior Vice President andChief Financial and Accounting Officer




A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to North Pittsburgh Systems, Inc. and will be retained by North Pittsburgh Systems, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Earnest WILLIAMS and Custer Williams v. STATE.

7 Div. 139.

Court of Appeals of Alabama,

June 4, 1935.

John W. Inzer, of Ashville, for appellant. A. A. Carmichael, Atty. Gen., for the State.

RICE, Judge.

Affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

HONORABLE MARCIA S. KRIEGER

Courtroom Deputy: Patricia Glover Date: August 22, 2012

Court Reporter: Terri Lindblom

Probation Officer: Gary Burney

Interpreter: Susanna Cahill

Criminal Action No. 11-cr-00412-MSK

Parties: Counsel:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, James Boma

Plaintiff,

v.

OCTAVIO QUEZADA-PEREZ, Robert Duthie, III

Defendant.

SENTENCING MINUTES

______________________________________________________________________________

9:15 a. m. Court in session.

Defendant present in custody

Interpreter sworn.

ORDER: Government’s Motion for Decrease for Acceptance of Responsibility (Doc. #330)

is GRANTED. 

Doc. #343 will be Restricted at Level 1

Change of Plea Hearing on April 6, 2012. Defendant pled guilty to Count 1 of the

Superseding Indictment.

Oral motion by the Government to dismiss Count 1 of the underlying Indictment against this

defendant. No objection by defendant.

ORDER: The Government’s oral motion to dismiss Count 1 of the underlying Indictment

against this defendant is GRANTED.

Parties received and reviewed the presentence report and all addenda.

The parties do not dispute the facts contained in the presentence report.

The parties do not dispute the calculation of the sentence under the Federal Sentencing

Guidelines as set forth in the original presentence report.
Sentencing Minutes

Judge Marcia S. Krieger

Page 2

The Government does request departure (Doc. #331). Argument.

The parties do not contend that the sentence should be different from that calculated under the

Sentencing Guidelines in light of the sentencing objectives set forth in 18 U.S.C. Section

3553(a).

Allocution. - Statements made by: The defendant, defense counsel.

After consideration of the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 3553 (a), the Court announces the sentence it

intends to impose as reflected in the record. Counsel are offered the opportunity for further

argument. No further argument.

ORDER: The Government’s Motion fo Downward Departure (Doc. #331) is GRANTED.

THE DEFENDANT IS SENTENCED AS REFLECTED IN THE RECORD.

The defendant is advised of his right to appeal.

ORDER: Defendant is remanded to the custody of the United States Marshal for the

District of Colorado.

9:40 a.m. Court in recess.

Total Time: 25 minutes

Hearing concluded.
<PAGE>


                                  [LETTERHEAD]


                                  EXHIBIT 23.1



                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We consent to the incorporation by reference into the CardioDynamics
International Corporation (the "Company") registration statement on Form S-8
(#333-14515) of our report dated February 25, 1997 (except for Note 14 as to
which the date is March 6, 1997) on the financial statements of the Company for
the years ended November 30, 1996 and 1995.




                                        /s/ Peterson & Co.

                                        PETERSON & CO.

San Diego, California
March 12, 1997
<PAGE>




                               DCB FINANCIAL CORP
EXHIBIT 32.1
------------

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


In connection with the Quarterly Report of DCB Financial Corp (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jeffrey Benton,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as enacted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:


     (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 operations of the
Company.



/s/ Jeffrey Benton


Jeffrey Benton
President and Chief Executive Officer
August 4, 2003


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             24.