alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                           
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          13,791
<SECURITIES>                                   285,901
<RECEIVABLES>                               12,512,178
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               721,382
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,533,252
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          785,830
<BONDS>                                     12,512,178
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       184,960
<OTHER-SE>                                      50,284
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,533,252
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               369,440
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  371,294
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,854)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (375)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,479)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.62)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2


        Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
        of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of
                         Title 18, United States Code)

         Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections
(a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each
of the undersigned officers of DaimlerChrysler Services North America LLC, as
Servicer of DaimlerChrysler Auto Trust 2002-A (the "Trust"), does hereby
certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

         The Trust's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2002 (the "Form 10-K") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained
in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material aspects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Trust.

Dated: March 26, 2003

                                         /s/ Juergen H. Walker
                                         ---------------------
                                         Juergen H. Walker
                                         President and Chief Executive
                                         Officer, DaimlerChrysler
                                         Services North America LLC,
                                         as Servicer of DaimlerChrysler
                                         Auto Trust 2002-A

Dated: March 26, 2003                    /s/ D. H. Olsen
                                         ---------------
                                         D. H. Olsen
                                         Vice President and
                                         Chief Financial Officer
                                         DaimlerChrysler Services,
                                         North America LLC, as
                                         Servicer of DaimlerChrysler
                                         Auto Trust 2002-A

         A signed original of the this written statement required by Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) Section 1350, Chapter
63 of Title 18, United States Code) has been provided to DaimlerChrysler Auto
Trust 2002-A and will be retained by DaimlerChrysler Auto Trust 2002-A and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-11015

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DOUGLAS RAY DUNKINS, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:97-CV-302-Y

- - - - - - - - - -

August 4, 1999

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Douglas Ray Dunkins, Jr., federal prisoner # 22619-077,

appeals from the denial of his motion for reduction of sentence

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 3582. He also moves for a certificate of

appealability (COA) in order to appeal the denial of his 28

U.S.C. § 2255 motion.

Dunkins’ challenge to the district court’s rationale for

denying the § 3582 motion is without merit. The district court

did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion. See United 
No. 98-11015

-2-

States v. Gonzalez-Balderas, 105 F.3d 981, 982 (5th Cir. 1997). 

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Dunkins raises the following in seeking a COA: 

1) several grounds in support of an ineffective-assistance-ofcounsel claim; and 2) a violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S.

83 (1963). Dunkins fails to make a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right. See 2253(c)(2). His request

for a COA is DENIED.

AFFIRMED. COA DENIED.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Elder, Kelsey and Powell 

Argued at Chesapeake, Virginia 

RICHARD E. ROBINSON 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION∗

v. Record No. 0792-10-2 PER CURIAM 

JULY 19, 2011 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND 

Beverly W. Snukals, Judge 

Patricia Palmer Nagel for appellant. 

Alice T. Armstrong, Assistant Attorney General II (Kenneth T. 

Cuccinelli, II, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee. 

A jury convicted Richard E. Robinson of three felony counts of dog fighting. See Code 

§ 3.2-6571. On appeal, Robinson asserts the “trial court erred in failing to dismiss two of the 

three felony indictments, based upon a violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Federal 

and State Constitutions.” Appellant’s Br. at 1. We disagree and affirm. 

On the morning of Robinson’s jury trial, his counsel filed a motion to dismiss two of the 

indictments as violative of his double jeopardy rights. See Motion to Quash and to Elect to 

Proceed (filed Dec. 15, 2010). Without addressing the merits of Robinson’s argument, the trial 

court denied the motion as untimely under Code § 19.2-266.2, which requires a defendant to file 

the motion at least seven days before trial. See Williams v. Commonwealth, 57 Va. App. 750, 

768 n.4, 706 S.E.2d 530, 539 n.4 (2011) (applying Code § 19.2-266.2 to motions to dismiss on 

double jeopardy grounds). Counsel admitted she was unfamiliar with Code § 19.2-266.2 and 

 ∗

 Pursuant to code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication 
offered no persuasive explanation for waiting until the morning of trial to file the motion.1

 The 

court found no showing of “good cause” or any “interest of justice” sufficient to excuse the 

delay. See Code § 19.2-266.2(B). When Robinson’s counsel renewed the motion during and 

after trial, the court reaffirmed its earlier ruling that the double jeopardy motion was untimely. 

Whether “good cause” and the “interest of justice” exist under Code § 19.2-266.2(B) is a 

question committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. “Only when reasonable jurists 

could not differ can we say an abuse of discretion has occurred.” Grattan v. Commonwealth, 

278 Va. 602, 620, 685 S.E.2d 634, 644 (2009) (quoting in parenthetical Thomas v. 

Commonwealth, 44 Va. App. 741, 753, 607 S.E.2d 738, 743 (2005)). Nothing in the trial court 

record, the petition for appeal, the appellant’s brief, or the oral arguments before us suggests the 

trial court abused its discretion in applying Code § 19.2-266.2. See Williams, 57 Va. App. at 

768 n.4, 706 S.E.2d at 539 n.4. We thus affirm Robinson’s convictions.2 

 

Affirmed.

 

 

 1

 Robinson was represented by other counsel at his jury trial. 

- 2 -

2

 After oral argument, Robinson filed a Motion for Leave of Court to File a Supplemental 

Brief (June 8, 2011). We deny that motion.
<PAGE>

                      SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

                            Washington, D.C. 20549



                                   FORM 8-K


                                CURRENT REPORT

    Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934



       Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): August 15, 2000



                           CROSS TIMBERS OIL COMPANY
            (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)



         Delaware                        1-10662                  75-2347769
(State or other jurisdiction     (Commission File Number)       (IRS Employer
      of incorporation)                                      Identification No.)

810 Houston Street, Suite 2000, Fort Worth, Texas                   76102
      (Address of principal executive offices)                    (Zip Code)


                                (817) 870-2800
             (Registrant's telephone number, including area code)
<PAGE>

Item 5. Other Events.

Three-for-Two Common Stock Split

On August 15, 2000, Cross Timbers announced that its Board of Directors declared
a three-for-two stock split of its outstanding common stock for shareholders of
record at the close of business on September 5, 2000.  The stock split will be
effected in the form of a stock dividend, which will be mailed on September 18,
2000.  Cash will be paid in lieu of fractional shares based on the New York
Stock Exchange closing price of the Company's common stock on September 5, 2000.
Cross Timbers will have approximately 70 million shares outstanding after the
stock split.

Increased Common Stock Cash Dividend

On August 15, 2000, Cross Timbers also announced that its Board of Directors
increased the Company's regular quarterly common stock cash dividend by 50% to 1
cent per share on the post-split outstanding common stock. This cash dividend
will be paid on October 13, 2000 to shareholders of record at the close of
business on September 29, 2000.

                                      -2-
<PAGE>

                                  SIGNATURES

     Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned hereunto duly authorized.


                                    CROSS TIMBERS OIL COMPANY


Date: August 24, 2000               By:    LOUIS G. BALDWIN
                                       ---------------------------------------
                                           Louis G. Baldwin
                                           Executive Vice President
                                              and Chief Financial Officer

                                      -3-
389 A.2d 173

#### Commonwealth v. McMahon, Appellant.

Submitted March 21, 1977.

Michael E. Bortner, Assistant Public Defender, and Robert L. Martin, Public Defender, for appellant;

Robert A. Mix and C. Kent Price, Assistant District Attorneys, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Order affirmed.

WATKINS, former P. J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1748 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1748

 To prevent the Federal Communications Commission from repromulgating 
                         the fairness doctrine.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 29, 2007

Mr. Coleman (for himself, Mr. DeMint, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Sessions, Mrs. 
   Hutchison, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Craig, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Graham, Mr. 
 Cornyn, Mr. Bond, Mr. McCain, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Voinovich, Mr. Thune, 
   Mr. Coburn, Mr. Allard, Mr. Roberts, and Mr. Kyl) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                 Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prevent the Federal Communications Commission from repromulgating 
                         the fairness doctrine.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2007''.

SEC. 2. FAIRNESS DOCTRINE PROHIBITED.

    Title III of the Communications Act of 1934 is amended by inserting 
after section 303 (47 U.S.C. 303) the following new section:

``SEC. 303A. LIMITATION ON GENERAL POWERS: FAIRNESS DOCTRINE.

    ``Notwithstanding section 303 or any other provision of this Act or 
any other Act authorizing the Commission to prescribe rules, 
regulations, policies, doctrines, standards, or other requirements, the 
Commission shall not have the authority to prescribe any rule, 
regulation, policy, doctrine, standard, or other requirement that has 
the purpose or effect of reinstating or repromulgating (in whole or in 
part) the requirement that broadcasters present opposing viewpoints on 
controversial issues of public importance, commonly referred to as the 
`Fairness Doctrine', as repealed in General Fairness Doctrine 
Obligations of Broadcast Licensees, 50 Fed. Reg. 35418 (1985).''.
                                 <all>
```
| Skip to Content*Release Date: December 6, 2007*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**F.124 Government-Sponsored Enterprises1** |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Gregory S. Lang, hereby certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in my
capacity as an officer of PMC-Sierra, Inc. (PMC), that, to my knowledge, this Quarterly Report of PMC on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 28, 2010, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of PMC.



|                  |  |     |  |                                      
|----------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: May 5, 2010 |  | By: |  | /s/    Gregory S. Lang               
|                  |  |     |  | Gregory S. Lang                      
|                  |  |     |  | President and Chief
Executive Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02766-RPM 

RICKEY BURRELL, 

 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CITY OF AURORA, COLORADO, 

BRANDON RINNAN, in his individual capacity, 

DARREN CHAMBERLAND, in his individual capacity, and 

DARRYL HUNTSMAN, in his individual capacity, 

Defendants. 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

ORDER 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

 UPON the parties’ Stipulated Motion to Modify Scheduling Order, the Court, being fully 

advised in the premises and for good cause shown, hereby: 

 ORDERS the parties’ Motion is GRANTED. The current deadlines, as set forth in the 

Scheduling Order [Doc. 8], are extended as follows: 

a. Plaintiff’s Expert Disclosure: August 25, 2012.

b. Defendant’s Expert Disclosure: September 22, 2012.

c. Rebuttal Expert Cut-off: October 12, 2012.

 BY THE COURT: 

Dated: July 6, 2012 s/ Richard P. Matsch 

 ____ 

 Richard P. Matsch, Senior District Judge 

Case 1:11-cv-02766-RPM Document 24 Filed 07/06/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 202 (Friday, October 17, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61799-61804]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-24453]



[[Page 61799]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Transmittal Nos. 08-88]


36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text 
of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to 
fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 
July 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 
601-3740.
    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives, Transmittals 08-88 with attached transmittal, policy 
justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.

    Dated: October 7, 2008.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M

[[Page 61800]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN17OC08.024


[[Page 61801]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN17OC08.025


[[Page 61802]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN17OC08.026


[[Page 61803]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN17OC08.027

[FR Doc. E8-24453 Filed 10-16-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
Exhibit 32



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 Lonestar Group Holdings Company (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Claude Eldridge, Chairman, Chief Executive 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 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.





Date: Aoril 18, 2007



By: /s/ Claude EldridgeClaude Eldridge, Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and Director

Lonestar Group Holdings Company
ex10-45.htm


EXHIBIT 10.45


 



PROMISSORY NOTE EXTENSION AGREEMENT


 



	$52,983.33	April 30, 2014





 


For value received, Guardian 8 Holdings, a Nevada corporation (the “Maker”) promised to pay to James G. Miller, or its registered assigns or successors in interest (the “Holder”) the Principal Amount and Interest (both as defined below) in the manner and upon the terms and conditions as set forth in that Term Note (“Note”) in the sum of Fifty Two Thousand Nine Hundred Eighty-Three Dollars and Thirty-Three Cents ($52,983.33), dated September 1, 2013, which Note becomes due and payable on or about April 30, 2014.







By execution by the parties herein, this Promissory Note Extension Agreement extends the Maturity Date of the Note to and including July 15, 2014. All terms and conditions of the Note shall remain the same other than the Maturity Date.







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Maker and Holder have caused this Promissory Note Extension Agreement to be executed and delivered as of the day and year first above written.







“Maker”


Guardian 8 Holdings


a Nevada corporation

















By: /s/ C. Stephen Cochennet                                                                          


                                                                       C. Stephen Cochennet, Chief Executive Officer







“Holder”






















/s/ James G. Miller                                                               


James G. Miller
**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 United eSystems, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report), Walter Reid
      Green, Jr., as Principal Financial Officer of the Company hereby certifies,
      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 his knowledge, 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/
                Walter Reid Green, Jr.Walter
                Reid Green, Jr.Chief
                Financial OfficerDate:
                March 29, 2007








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

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-2179

ANGELLO A. D. OSBORNE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

PETER GEORGIADES, Police Corporal,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

DIONE WHITE, LGSW; MEREDITH LYNN PIPITONE,

Defendants.

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

Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:14-cv-00182-RDB)

Submitted: March 20, 2018 Decided: September 30, 2019

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, KING, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Angello A. D. Osborne, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Angello A. D. Osborne appeals the district court’s order granting summary 

judgment to Peter Georgiades on qualified immunity grounds. We have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. Osborne v. Georgiades, No. 1:14-cv-00182-RDB (D. Md. Sept. 11, 2017). 

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.

AFFIRMED