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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM
10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND NOTES THERETO.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                             391
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,703
<ALLOWANCES>                                       820
<INVENTORY>                                      1,995
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,578
<PP&E>                                          10,551
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,289
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  19,058
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,768
<BONDS>                                          1,965
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,805
<OTHER-SE>                                      12,520
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    19,058
<SALES>                                         10,743
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,743
<CGS>                                           10,848
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   17,699
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 539
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,671)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,671)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   9,779
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (583)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,525
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.39


</TABLE>
(173 La. 476)

#### STATE v. DE BOUCHEL et al.

No. 31387.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 3, 1931.

Richard A. Dowling, Alfred M. Guilbeau, and Alexis Brian, all of New Orleans, for relators.

Leander H. Perez, Dist. Atty., for the State.

OVERTON, J.

Defendants were informed against for using loud and obscene language on a public highway. Two of the defendants were convicted and sentenced.

The information, upon which the conviction was had, charges that defendants “aid willfully and unlawfully use loud and obscene language upon the public highway and did then and there disturb the peace.” The charge was made under Act No. 31 of 1886, the first section of which denounces the act charged, and reads as follows:

> “Any person who shall go into any public place, into or near any private house, or along any public street or highway near to any private house, and who shall use loud and vociferous or obscene, vulgar or indecent language, or swear or curse, or expose his person, or rudely display or wantonly or maliciously discharge or use any pistol or other deadly weapon in such public place, or upon such public street or highway, or near such private house, in a manner calculated to disturb or alarm the inhabitants thereof, shall, on conviction thereof before any court of competent jurisdiction, be condemned to pay a fine not exceeding fifty dollars. * * * *”*

Defendants, at the outset of the trial, objected to, the hearing of evidence under the bill of information on the ground that the bill charged no offense known to the law, and reiterated the objection to the bill in a motion in arrest of judgment. The basis of the objection is that, while the bill alleges that the loud and obscene language was used on a public highway, yet it fails to allege another essential fact, namely, that it was near a private house.

The objection to the bill is well taken, and should have been sustained. The first part of section 1 of the act is clear to the effect that the disturbance on the public highway must be near a private house, and this is not changed by the wording that follows, to wit, “in such public place, or upon such public street or highway, or near such private house, in a manner calculated to disturb or alarm the inhabitants thereof.” The use of the word “such,” before “public street or highway,” would indicate that no change was intended. In short, it is not the purpose of the statute to punish one for using loud and obscene language on a public highway at any point, but only at a point near a private house, and then in a manner calculated to disturb or alarm the inhabitants thereof.

The bilí, objecting to the competency of the judge ad hoc, because he was a witness in expropriation proceedings, connected with this case, is without merit.

For these reasons the judgment is set aside, and defendants are discharged under the present bill of information, reserving the right to the state to prosecute defendants under a proper bill of information, should it deem proper.
EXHIBIT
                                                                            32.1


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

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Streicher Mobile Fueling, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2003,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), each of the undersigned 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 result of
               operations of the Company.

      A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Streicher Mobile Fueling, Inc. and will be retained by
Streicher Mobile Fueling, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
commission or its staff upon request.




/S/ RICHARD E. GATHRIGHT
-------------------------------------------------
Richard E. Gathright
President and Chief Executive Officer
November 14, 2003


/S/ MICHAEL S. SHORE
-------------------------------------------------
Michael S. Shore
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
November 14, 2003
1 “[#69]” 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-02523-REB-CBS

BRITTANY THURMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEPUTY ARTHUR PETERSON, individually and in his capacity as a paid peace officer

and as an Employee and/or agent of the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office, Jefferson

County, and the Jefferson County Auto Theft Task Force,

JEFFERSON COUNTY in its capacity as the employer of Deputy Arthur Peterson, as a

governmental entity, and/or as an agent, independent contractor or employer of the

Jefferson County Auto Theft Task Force,

JOHN DOES 1-10, whose names and identities and culpability in the instant matter are

yet unknown, individually and in their capacity as governmental officers or employees;

peace officers; and/or agents of the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office; the Lakewood

Police Department; the City of Lakewood; the Jefferson County Auto Theft Task Force

and/or the State of Colorado.

Defendants.

ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANT JEFFERSON COUNTY

Blackburn, J.

The matter before me is the Plaintiff and Defendant Jefferson County’s Joint

Motion For Dismissal of Jefferson County With Prejudice [#69]1 filed January 25,

2013. After careful review of the motion and the file, I conclude that the motion should

be granted and that plaintiff’s claims against defendant Jefferson County should be

dismissed with prejudice.

Case 1:11-cv-02523-REB-CBS Document 72 Filed 01/28/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. That Plaintiff and Defendant Jefferson County’s Joint Motion For

Dismissal of Jefferson County With Prejudice [#69] filed January 25, 2013, is

GRANTED;

2. That plaintiff’s claims against defendant Jefferson County are DISMISSED

WITH PREJUDICE, with the parties to bear their attorney fees and costs; and 

3. That defendant Jefferson County is DROPPED as a party to this action, and

the caption shall be amended accordingly.

Dated January 28, 2013, at Denver, Colorado.

BY THE COURT:

Case 1:11-cv-02523-REB-CBS Document 72 Filed 01/28/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Christine M. Arguello

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-00406-CMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

2. DANIEL SHAW,

Defendant.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION AND AMENDED MOTION TO VACATE, 

SET ASIDE, OR CORRECT SENTENCE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2255

On July 31, 2015, the Court issued an Order Denying Defendant Daniel Shaw’s 

Motion and Amended Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence Pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2255. (Doc. # 451.) In its Order, the Court inadvertently omitted analysis 

regarding the issuance of a certificate of appealability of that Order, and this matter is now 

before the Court on Mr. Shaw’s Motion for a Certificate of Appealability. (Doc. # 452.)

Under Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United 

States District Courts, a “district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability 

when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” Under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), the 

Court may issue a certificate of appealability “only if the applicant has made a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” Id. (emphasis added). 

Such a showing is made when a movant “demonstrates ‘that jurists of reason would find it 

Case 1:11-cr-00406-CMA Document 453 Filed 11/13/15 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
debatable’ that a constitutional violation occurred, and that the district court erred in its 

resolution.” United States v. Pinson, 584 F.3d 972, 975 (10th Cir. 2009) (quoting Slack 

v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

In the instant case, the Order denying Mr. Shaw’s Habeas Petitions explained that 

he did not present a cognizable constitutional claim with respect to either (1) his Sixth 

Amendment right to testify or (2) the Government’s alleged Brady violation. (Doc. #

451.) Although Defendant’s Motion asserts that Mr. Shaw’s case presents “unusual and 

disturbing circumstances,” in essence, it reiterates the same arguments it made in his 

original Petitions, and the Court concludes that reasonable jurists would not disagree with 

the Court’s conclusion and find that the Court erred. As such, Mr. Shaw has not made a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, and the Court has no grounds to 

issue a certificate of appealability.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Mr. Shaw’s Motion for Certificate of Appealability. 

(Doc. # 452) is hereby DENIED.

DATED: November 13, 2015

BY THE COURT:

_______________________________

CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO

United States District Judge

2

Case 1:11-cr-00406-CMA Document 453 Filed 11/13/15 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02503-BNB

JAMES DENMAN,

Applicant,

v.

THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, and

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, 

Respondents.

MINUTE ORDER

ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE BOYD N. BOLAND

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Applicant’s Motion for Sanctions (Doc. #18), filed

on December 5, 2011, is denied.

 

Dated: December 6, 2011

Case 1:11-cv-02503-BNB Document 20 Filed 12/06/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM BALANCE
SHEET AND STATEMENT OF INCOME 6-30-99 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         628,349
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,893,724
<ALLOWANCES>                                   114,238
<INVENTORY>                                  4,492,274
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,438,726
<PP&E>                                       4,822,409
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,292,724
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,854,197
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,187,023
<BONDS>                                      2,364,593
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,271,730
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,411,403
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,854,197
<SALES>                                     15,956,798
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            15,956,798
<CGS>                                        9,087,933
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,087,933
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                24,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             384,577
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,158,055
<INCOME-TAX>                                   439,975
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            718,080
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   718,080
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.08


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

JUDGE R. BROOKE JACKSON

Courtroom Deputy: Laura Galera

Court Reporter: Kara Spitler

Date: June 11, 2012

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02690-RBJ 

Parties:

DARYL SCHRAAD,

Plaintiff,

v.

DIRECT VET MARKETING, INC., 

Defendant.

Counsel:

Joseph J. Mellon

Robert E. Ward, II

Joshua B. Kirkpatrick

COURTROOM MINUTES

MOTION HEARING 

Court in session: 9:29 a.m.

Appearances of counsel.

9:30 a.m. Argument by Mr. Kirkpatrick as to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal

Jurisdiction Doc.# [9].

9:56 a.m. Argument by Mr. Mellon.

10:06 a.m. Rebuttal argument by Mr. Kirkpatrick.

 

Court in recess: 10:10 a.m.

Court in session: 11:43 a.m.

Court addresses the parties. 

For the reasons and findings as stated on the record, it is;

Case 1:11-cv-02690-RBJ Document 19 Filed 06/11/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

ORDERED: Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction Doc.# [9] is GRANTED. 

Court in recess: 12:11 p.m.

Hearing concluded.

Total time: 01:09

Case 1:11-cv-02690-RBJ Document 19 Filed 06/11/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
NO. 07-04-0415-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

SEPTEMBER 24, 2004

______________________________

RICHARD RAMOS, APPELLANT

V.

WILLIS MORAN, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 100TH DISTRICT COURT OF CHILDRESS COUNTY;

NO. 8849; HONORABLE DAVID MCCOY, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before JOHNSON, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pursuant to prior directives of this Court and correspondence from appellant Ramos,

this appeal is dismissed. 

Phil Johnson

Chief Justice
EXHIBIT 21.1



|                           |  |                                               |  |   
|-------------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------- |  | --
|Subsidiaries of Registrant |  | State of Incorporation                       
|                           |  |                                              
|                          |  | World Health Staffing, Inc.                   |  | DE
|                           |  |                                              
|                          |  | World Health Staffing, Inc.                   |  | CA
|                           |  |                                              
|                          |  | JC Nationwide, Inc.                           |  | DE
|                           |  |                                              
|                          |  | Better Solutions, Inc.                        |  | PA
|                           |  |                                              
|                          |  | MedTech Medical Staffing of New England, Inc. |  | DE
|                           |  |                                              
|                          |  | Med Tech Franchising, Inc.                    |  | DE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED BALANCE SHEET AND THE CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED
INCOME STATEMENT AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          25,549
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           1,529
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                19,855
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    178,008
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          19,591
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            20,016
<LOANS>                                        539,404
<ALLOWANCE>                                      6,099
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 827,945
<DEPOSITS>                                     709,871
<SHORT-TERM>                                    20,032
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             28,846
<LONG-TERM>                                     10,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,387
<OTHER-SE>                                      56,809
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 827,945
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 44,079
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                8,723
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 1,913
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                54,715
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              25,828
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              28,823
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           25,892
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    1,218
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                (13)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 19,672
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,124
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       6,448
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,448
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.35
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.04
<LOANS-NON>                                      3,709
<LOANS-PAST>                                       195
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 5,451
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      872
<RECOVERIES>                                       302
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                6,099
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             4,497
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          1,602
        

</TABLE>
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk May 24, 2011

p0516 

# Order

May 24, 2011

142353

CITY/VILLAGE OF DOUGLAS, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 142353 COA: 292948 Allegan CC: 08-043308-CK MARK VON DER HEIDE, JOSEPH T. JOHNSON, and WATERVIEW VENTURES, INC., Defendants-Appellants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the November 18, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.
**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 on Form 10-Qof World Heart Corporation (the “Corporation”) for the quarter ended June 30,2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), the undersigned, David Pellone, Vice President, Finance andChief Financial Officer of the Corporation, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-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 June 30, 2008.

 
| Dated:  August 13,  2008 | /s/ *David Pellone                           |
|------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------|
|                               | David Pellone, Vice President, Finance       |
|                               | and Chief Financial Officer                  |
|                               | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |

 

----

*******                **A signedoriginal of this written statement required by section 906 has beenprovided to the Corporation and will be retained by the Corporation andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----