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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF DURWOOD, INC. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          39,744
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                39,744
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  39,744
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,611
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,104
<OTHER-SE>                                      33,029
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    39,744
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,504
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,504)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,504)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,504)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.00)
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Incentra Solutions,
Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Paul
McKnight, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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.


Date:  August 15, 2005                             By:   /s/ Paul McKnight
                                                         -----------------
                                                         Paul McKnight
                                                         Chief Financial Officer



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

This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of ss.18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 99-3574

___________ Karen Butcher, * * Plaintiff, * * v. * * State of Arkansas; Arkansas * Department of Correction; * * Defendants, * * Appeal from the United States Larry Norris, in his official capacity; * District Court for the Eastern G. David Guntharp, in his official * District of Arkansas. and individual capacity; * * [UNPUBLISHED] Defendants-Appellees, * * Robert Raible, in his official and * individual capacity; * * Defendant-Appellant, * * Charles Capps, in his official and * individual capacity, * * Defendant. *

___________ Submitted: July 10, 2000 Filed: July 21, 2000-2- ___________ Before WOLLMAN, Chief Judge, FAGG and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Robert Raible appeals the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment on Raible's cross-claim against defendants Larry Norris and G. David Guntharp. Having carefullyreviewed the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm for the reasons stated in the district court's memorandum opinion and order. See8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
AGREEMENT, dated January 3, 2000, by and between Acubid.com Inc., a
Delaware corporation with offices at 1947 Camino Vida Roble, Suite 102,
Carlsbad, California 92008 ("Acubid") and Jeffrey Marcus, with offices at 777
Third Avenue, 19th Floor, New Yord, New York 10017 ("Marcus").

                              W I T N E S S E T H:
                              - - - - - - - - - -

         WHEREAS, Marcus has performed legal services for Acubid and Acubid is
presently indebted to Marcus in the amount of Eighteen Thousand Seven Hundred
Fifty ($18,750.00) Dollars; and

         WHEREAS, Acubid desires to issue and deliver to Marcus twenty five
thousand (25,000) Shares of Common Stock, $.001 par value, of Acubid in payment
of the aforementioned $18,750.00, and marcus desires to accept 25,000 shares of
Acubid Common Stock in satisfaction of the aforesaid $18,750.00;

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the provisions herein contained,
the parties hereto hereby agree as follows:

         1. Acubid acknowledges that it is indebted to Marcus in the amount of
$18,750.00 for past services rendered to Acubid and hereby agrees to issue and
deliver to Marcus 25,000 Shares of its Common Stock, $.001 par value, in payment
of the aforesaid $18,750.00 debt and Marcus hereby agrees to accept 25,000
Shares of Acubid Common Stock, $.001 par value, as payment of the aforesaid
$18,750.00.

         2. Acubid hereby agrees to use its best efforts to register the 25,000
Shares of Acubid Common Stock issued to Marcus hereunder with the Securities and
Exchange Commission by filing a registration statement on Form S-8 with respect
to such Shares as soon as practicable following the issuance of such Shares.

<PAGE>
         3. This Agreement contains the entire understanding of the parties
hereto with respect to the subject matter contained herein and supercedes all
prior agreements and understandings between the parties.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have duly executed this Agreement
as of the day and year first above written.


                                             ACUBID.COM INC.


                                             By: /s/ Michael Schaffer
                                                --------------------------
                                                Michael Schaffer,
                                                  Chief Executive Officer

                                                /s/ Jeffrey Marcus
                                                -------------------------
                                                Jeffrey Marcus
<page>				       EXHIBIT 32.02


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 Morgan Stanley Charter
Campbell L.P. (the ?Partnership?) on Form 10-K for the period
ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the ?Report?), I, Christian
Angstadt, Chief Financial Officer of Demeter Management
Corporation, the general partner of the Partnership, 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:
(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 Partnership.








By:	  /s/	Christian Angstadt

Name:		Christian Angstadt
Title:	Chief Financial Officer

Date:		March 27, 2008
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALBERTO JORGE VARGASRODRIGUEZ,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 10-71821

Agency No. A099-632-993

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 17, 2012** 

Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Alberto Jorge Vargas-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his

appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. We have jurisdiction under

FILED

JUL 24 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-71821

8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Mohammed v. Gonzales,

400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005), and we deny the petition for review.

Vargas-Rodriguez’s contention that the BIA violated his right to due process

by not addressing his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel fails because he has

not established prejudice resulting from the BIA’s omission. See Lata v. INS, 204

F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error and prejudice to prevail on a due

process claim). 

Vargas-Rodriguez has failed to raise in his opening brief, and therefore has

waived, any challenge to the agency’s denial of his application for cancellation of

removal. See Rizk v. Holder, 629 F.3d 1083, 1091 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011) (issues not

raised in a petitioner’s opening brief are deemed waived).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
#### YELLOW CAB CO. OF MIAMI, a Florida Corporation, Appellant, v. Dorothy FRANE, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division B.

Nov. 16, 1954.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 7, 1954.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, *v.*Isidore Lipschultz, Defendant.

County Court, Kings County,

February 20, 1957.

*687
      *Philip Dinitz*for defendant.

*Edward S. Silver, District Attorney (William Siegel*of counsel), for plaintiff.

Hyman Barshay, J.

On May 15, 1928, the petitioner was arraigned in this court on an indictment for robbery in the first degree, assault in the second degree and grand larceny in the first degree. After trial, he was found guilty by a jury of robbery in the first degree, unarmed. On October 29, 1928, he was arraigned for sentence and was asked whether he had any legal cause to show why the judgment of the law should not now be pronounced against him. In reply, he moved to set aside the verdict. That motion was denied and the court deferred sentence for two weeks pending further investigation. On November 12, 1928, the petitioner was sentenced to a term of not less than 15 years and not more than 25 years in State prison.

He now claims that on the adjourned day, he was illegally sentenced in that he was not asked whether he had any legal cause to show why judgment should not be pronounced as required by section 480 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

On consent of the District Attorney a hearing was held. The evidence adduced at the hearing disclosed that the minute book in which entries are made by the clerk of the part, is the only contemporaneous record of the proceedings in a particular part. With respect to the sentence of this defendant, minute book number 287, at page 83, contains the following entry: *“*Sentence is this day imposed by Hon. Alonzo McLaughlin in this part. * * * Isidore Lipschultz Bob. 1st Sing Sing Prison. 15 years to 30 [sic] years.” Although there is an entry in sentence book number 285, page 93, which, under date of November 12, 1928, indicates a compliance with section 480 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it was testified to by a clerk of this court that entries in the sentence book are not made simultaneously with the imposition of sentence. Section 480 provides: “ When the defendant appears for judgment, he must be asked by the clerk whether he have any legal cause to show, why judgment should not be pronounced against him.” On sentence day, November 12, 1928, the provisions of section 480 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were not complied with.

In the case of *People ex rel. Miller*v. *Martin*(1 N Y 2d 406, 410) the court held: “In a criminal case the sentence of the *688court is the judgment (see *People*v. *Cioffi,*1 N Y 2d 70, 72; *People*v. *Shaw,*1 N Y 2d 30, 32; *People*v. *Harcq,*292 N. Y. 321, 326). Thus the mandate of section 480 must he followed *at the time defendant appears for sentencing,*and at no other time. On this occasion defendant may show that he is insane, or that he has good cause to offer, either in arrest of judgment, or for a new trial (Code Crim. Pro., § 482).” On the record herein, I find there was no compliance with section 480. This application is, therefore, granted. The petitioner is to be produced in court for resentence as soon as convenient to the authorities in whose charge he is presently committed. Submit order.
EXHIBIT 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Incentra Solutions, Inc. (the "Company") for the period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
Anthony DiPaolo, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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.

|Date: | May 8, 2007 |  | By: | /s/ Anthony DiPaolo    
|----- | ----------- |  | --- | -----------------------
|      |             |  |     | Anthony DiPaolo        
|      |             |  |     | Chief Financial Officer





______________________________________________________________________

This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes
      of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02597-LTB

PEGGY SPENCE, on behalf of Darrow A. Hartness, Jr.,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

FINAL JUDGMENT

Pursuant to and in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a) and the Order signed

by the Honorable Lewis T. Babcock on January 4, 2013, incorporated herein by

reference, it is

ORDERED that the SSA Commissioner’s final order is AFFIRMED. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that final judgment is hereby entered in favor of

Defendant, Michael J. Astrue, and against Plaintiff, Peggy Spence. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint and this civil action are

DISMISSED with prejudice. 

DATED at Denver, Colorado this 4th day of January, 2013.

FOR THE COURT:

JEFFREY P. COLWELL, CLERK

By: s/ Edward P. Butler

Edward P. Butler,

Deputy Clerk

Case 1:11-cv-02597-LTB Document 23 Filed 01/04/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
| Skip to Content*Release Date: March 10, 2005*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**F.119 Private Pension Funds1** |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Skip to Content*Release Date: December 9, 2004*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**F.225 Life Insurance and Pension Fund Reserves** |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02595-RPM

CHRISTINE DOCKSEY and

ROSS DOCKSEY,

Plaintiffs,

v.

TAYLOR JANDA, 

Defendant.

 

ORDER SETTING TRIAL DATE

 

Pursuant to the pretrial conference today, it is

ORDERED that this matter is set for trial to jury on March 11, 2013, at 8:30 a.m.,

in Courtroom A, Second Floor, the Byron White United States Courthouse, 1823 Stout

Street, Denver, Colorado. Trial procedures may be found at

www.cod.uscourts.gov/judges_frame.htm. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that counsel shall submit transcripts of witnesses appearing

by videotape on or before February 22, 2013; and the deadline for submitting proposed voir

dire, substantive instructions and statement of the case is March 6, 2013.

Dated: September 21st, 2012

BY THE COURT:

s/Richard P. Matsch

________________________________

Richard P. Matsch, Senior District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02595-RPM Document 20 Filed 09/21/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
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 Annual Report of Key Tronic Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended
July 3, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-K), I, Craig D. Gates, 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 Form 10-K 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 Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: September 13, 2010



/s/ Craig D. GatesCraig D. GatesPresident and Chief Executive Officer
#### BIRMINGHAM ELECTRIC CO. v. Rufus WHITE.

6 Div. 707.

Court of Appeals of Alabama.

May 14, 1935.

Lange, Simpson & Brantley, of Birmingham, for appellant.

Harrison Kendrick, of Birmingham, for appellee.

SAMFORD, Judge.

Appeal dismissed on motion of appellant.
October 10, 1978



### 78-56 MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE GENERAL COUNSEL, LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE
ADMINISTRATION

Government Officers and Employees— Standards of Conduct (28 CFR 45.735.12)— Outside Employment— Teaching Law School Course

This is in response to your request for our advice whether you may teach a course at George Washington University Law School next spring on the subject of Federal grant-in-aid programs. We understand that you would receive a standard fee of approximately $1,000 for the course, which will meet twice weekly for a period of 15 weeks. You have informed us that the course will deal with Federal grant programs generally and will touch only incidentally on matters relating to the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA). The Department’s regulations provide that no employee may receive compensation for any writing, teaching, or similar activity “ the subject matterof which is devoted substantially to the responsibilities, programs, or operations of the Department, or which draws substantially on official data or ideas which have not become part of the body of public information.” 28 CFR 45.735.12(b). The general subject of Federal grants-in-aid may be thought to touch on the activities of your Agency—a major grantor Agency—and therefore on the activities of the Department. However, because your course will not concentrate on LEAA-related matters, we do not think it should be deemed to be “ devoted substantially to the responsibilities, programs, or operations of the Department” in the specific sense that the regulation was intended to impart. • We believe this construction of the regulation is consistent with § 202 of Executive Order No. 11222, which notes that teaching, lecturing, and writing by Federal employees are generally to be encouraged, although any appearance of conflict of interest is of course to be avoided. A Federal employee will naturally be requested and inclined to teach in an area of his professional expertise. To this extent, teaching may always be related to the activities of the employing Government agency. In our view, it is only where the course focuses more specifically on departmental responsibilities, where the employee

231may be perceived as conveying departmental policy, where the fee is out of line

with the effort entailed, see also 28 CFR 45.735.2(c)(1), or where the activity interferes with the performance of official duties, see also 28 CFR 45.735.9(d)(1), that teaching should be discouraged. Absent the above factors and without the use of confidential information, we see no objection to your teaching the course and receiving the fee therefor.

L e o n U l m a n Deputy Assistant Attorney General

Office o f Legal Counsel

232