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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-29-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-29-1996
<CASH>                                          13,969
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   56,571
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (2,334)
<INVENTORY>                                     30,474
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               103,266
<PP&E>                                          90,357
<DEPRECIATION>                                (63,755)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 157,612
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           63,954
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           110
<OTHER-SE>                                      34,037
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   157,612
<SALES>                                        122,190
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               211,503
<CGS>                                           84,727
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  162,516
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                49,836
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,299
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,995)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (3,876)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (119)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (422)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (541)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.05)
        

</TABLE>
#### Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co. *v.*Leahy.

(No. 25446

Decided October 2, 1935.)

*Mr. S. J. Kornhauser,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Paul J. Gnau,*for defendant in error.

It is ordered and adjudged that said petition in error be, and the same is hereby, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Petition in error dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Stephenson, Wiliaams, Jones and Zimmerman, JJ., concur.

Matthias and Day, JJ., not participating.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 202 (Friday, October 17, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61853-61854]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-24662]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER09-31-000]


Farmers City Wind, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

October 10, 2008.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
Farmers City Wind, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, 
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes 
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future 
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888

[[Page 61854]]

First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 
and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 
385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest 
must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is October 30, 2008.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link 
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification 
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with 
any FERC Online service, please e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e4a2a1b6a7ab8a888d8a81b79194948b9690a482819687ca838b92"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="44020116070b2a282d2a21173134342b363004222136276a232b32">[email protected]</span></a> or 
call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-24662 Filed 10-16-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
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 Java Express, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending March 31, 2006, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Howard Abrams, Chief
Executive and Financial Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

      (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.


Dated: July 13, 2006            /s/ Howard Abrams
                                --------------------------------------------
                                Howard Abrams
                                Chief Executive and Financial Officer
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<meta name="pdf:PDFVersion" content="1.2">
<meta name="xmp:CreatorTool" content="Acrobat Capture Server 2.0">
<meta name="pdf:hasXFA" content="false">
<meta name="access_permission:modify_annotations" content="true">
<meta name="dc:creator" content="capture">
<meta name="dcterms:created" content="1998-09-04T17:37:52Z">
<meta name="dcterms:modified" content="1998-09-04T17:37:55Z">
<meta name="dc:format" content="application/pdf; version=1.2">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:creator_tool" content="Acrobat Capture Server 2.0">
<meta name="access_permission:fill_in_form" content="true">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:modified" content="1998-09-04T17:37:55Z">
<meta name="pdf:hasCollection" content="false">
<meta name="pdf:encrypted" content="false">
<meta name="Content-Length" content="60802">
<meta name="pdf:hasMarkedContent" content="false">
<meta name="Content-Type" content="application/pdf">
<meta name="access_permission:can_print_faithful" content="true">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:creator" content="capture">
<meta name="pdf:producer" content="Acrobat PDFWriter 3.02 for Windows NT">
<meta name="access_permission:extract_for_accessibility" content="true">
<meta name="access_permission:assemble_document" content="true">
<meta name="xmpTPg:NPages" content="2">
<meta name="pdf:hasXMP" content="false">
<meta name="access_permission:extract_content" content="true">
<meta name="access_permission:can_print" content="true">
<meta name="X-TIKA:Parsed-By" content="org.apache.tika.parser.DefaultParser">
<meta name="X-TIKA:Parsed-By" content="org.apache.tika.parser.pdf.PDFParser">
<meta name="access_permission:can_modify" content="true">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:producer" content="Acrobat PDFWriter 3.02 for Windows NT">
<meta name="pdf:docinfo:created" content="1998-09-04T17:37:52Z">
<title></title>
</head>
<body><div class="page"><p></p>
<div class="ocr">145

LJ *
“fa a —

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN

fenerable R, B, Beasley
Gounty Awlitor

£4 eounty bills, The County
i har that the Tex Assessore
Colleete yay ber fer the three 4 that
she worked_if the County Treasurer's effice,
wat as though she had rendered service in said
‘Gepartment.

"Binge the Agsessor-Coliseter's offices re-
ceived no benefit from the three days work, the
</div>

</div>
<div class="page"><p></p>
<p>. ..-. -a- - ,-... .“. 
</p>
<p>-?L. ., _.‘~ </p>
<p></p>
</div>
</body></html>
#### Frank HIGDON, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Nov. 19, 1971.

J. Wood Vance, Jr., Glasgow, for appellant.

*111John B. Breckinridge, Atty. Gen., David E. Murrell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frankfort, for appellee.

STEINFELD, Judge.

Appellant Frank Higdon was convicted of the crime of storehouse breaking denounced by KRS 433.190. He appeals. We affirm.

A search warrant was issued upon a faulty affidavit. Property allegedly stolen was observed by an officer when he presented the warrant at the residence of Higdon. Later when another officer, who was accompanied by the owner of the stolen property, returned with the same warrant, the mother of Higdon, with whom he lived, displayed some of the same articles to them. On the trial the chief of police testified at length and told that a search warrant had been obtained and what was discovered. The robbery victim followed, and he too was thoroughly examined and cross-examined about the discovered property which he said was stolen from him. A second police officer testified about related matters. The assistant chief of police was then interrogated and after he had answered twenty-one questions, counsel for Higdon requested that he might see the search warrant. It was then discovered that it was not in the record; whereupon, an adjournment was ordered to permit its production.

It was produced and the trial resumed. Higdon’s attorney, a different one than the lawyer representing Higdon on this appeal, asked the witness many additional questions, some of which pertained to the stolen property, the affidavit and the search warrant. He then moved to “ * * * strike all evidence relating to anything found as a result of the search * * * ” His motion was correctly overruled. At the time the chief of police testified, the challenge should have been made — the objection came too late. Senibaldi v. Com., Ky., 338 S.W.2d 915 (1960). Also see RCr 9.22 and Knight v. Com., Ky., 405 S.W.2d 685 (1966), and Shelton v. Com., Ky., (decided November 19, 1971).

The judgment is affirmed.

All concur.
EXHIBIT 99.2

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


     I, Leon Nowalsky, state and attest that:

     (1)  I am the Treasurer of Riverbend Telecom, Inc. (the "issuer").

     (2)  Accompanying this certification is the Form 10-KSB for the year
ended December 31, 2002, a periodic report (the "periodic report") filed
by the issuer with the Securities Exchange Commission pursuant to Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act"), which contains financial statements.

     (3)  I hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
based on my knowledge:

     *    the periodic report containing the financial statements fully
          complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
          Exchange Act, and

     *    the information contained in the periodic report fairly
          presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
          results of operations of the issuer for the periods presented
          therein.

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


/s/ Leon Nowalsky
-------------------------
Leon Nowalsky
Date:  March 31, 2003
#### Augusta Z. BENTLEY, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

No. 7389.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Jan. 12, 1938.

Manchester, Ford, Bennett *&*Powers, of Youngstown, Ohio, for petitioner.

Robert H. Jackson, Sewall Key, Harry Marselli, and Berryman Green, all of Washington, D. C., for respondent.

Before MOORMAN and SIMONS, Circuit Judges, and RAYMOND, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

The court being of opinion that there is substantial evidence to support the finding of the Board of Tax Appeals that there was a deficiency in the income tax of the petitioner for the year 1930, it is ordered that the order of the Board assessing the deficiency so found be, and the same is, affirmed.
EXHIBIT
32.1





SECTION
906 CERTIFICATION








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 Form 10-K Annual Report of UHF Incorporated (the "Company")
for the period ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned hereby
certifies, 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 results of operations of the
      Company.











Date:
      February 20, 2009
                
                by:
                /s/ Ronald C. SchmeiserRonald
      C. SchmeiserPrincipal
      Executive Officer andPrincipal
      Financial Officer



































17
<PAGE>

                                  Exhibit 99.3


INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT

The Board of Directors
First Reliance Bank
Florence, South Carolina

We have audited the accompanying balance sheets of First Reliance Bank as of
December 31, 2001 and 2000 and the related statements of income, changes in
shareholders' equity and comprehensive income, and cash flows for the years
ended December 31, 2001 and 2000 and for the period August 16, 1999 to December
31, 1999. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Bank's
management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial
statements based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted
in the United States of America. Those standards require that we plan and
perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial
statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a
test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial
statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and
significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall
financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a
reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in
all material respects, the financial position of First Reliance Bank as of
December 31, 2001 and 2000 and the results of its operations and cash flows for
the years ended December 31, 2001 and 2000 and for the period August 16, 1999 to
December 31, 1999 in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in
the United States of America.

Tourville, Simpson and Caskey, L.L.P.
Columbia, South Carolina
February 1, 2002

Tourville, Simpson & Caskey, LLP ceased operations on December 31, 2002.
Therefore, the above opinions have not been reissued.
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 Uni-Pixel, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jeffrey W. Tomz, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





•           The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C 78m or 78o(d)); and


•           The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:
March 10, 2011

By:

/s/ Jeffrey W. TomzJeffrey W. Tomz, Chief Financial Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Uni-Pixel, Inc. and will be retained by Uni-Pixel, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.  The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### David Allan MARR, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 46033.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 25, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 13, 1972.

*94Knox Jones, McAllen, for appellant.

Oscar B. Mclnnis, Dist. Atty., and Thomas P. Beery, Asst. Dist. Atty., Edinburg, Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., and Robert A. Huttash, Asst. State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

MORRISON, Judge

The offense is the possession of marihuana; the punishment, thirty (30) months in the Texas Department of Corrections.

Appellant’s first ground of error set forth in his brief filed in the trial court is that the court abused its discretion by “not ascertaining all relevant factors regarding sentencing appellant . . .”. Specifically, he contends the court erred in refusing to order a pre-sentence investigation which would have disclosed appellant was a narcotics addict and that he worked as an undercover narcotics agent. He claims both of these facts should have entitled him to probation.

The record reflects that appellant’s first request for such a report came through a Motion for New Trial presented at the hearing for the purpose of sentencing. The record further reflects that appellant was on probation at the time of this trial and that, at the trial on the merits, the judge listened to evidence from both sides, including a physician called by the defense, concerning the fact that the appellant was a heroin addict and desired probation in order to seek treatment.

The question of whether an accused is entitled to probation in a trial before the court is solely a matter for the trial court’s discretion. McNeese v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 468 S.W.2d 800. This court will not disturb the action of the trial court in denying probation. Jackson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 474 S.W.2d 237; Trautschold v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 466 S.W.2d 536 and cases as cited.

In a brief filed for the first time in this court, appellant challenges the constitutionality of Article 725b, Vernon’s Ann. P.C., insofar as it classified marihuana (cannabis) as a narcotic drug. In Sanders v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 482 S.W.2d 648, we addressed ourselves to substantially the same questions. Our views remain the same.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment is affirmed.
Order entered July 3 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 13
- 00442
- CR ROCKY MORRIS, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F95
- 01315
- U



### O RDER
We GRANT the Dallas County District clerk’s June 27, 2014 request for an extension of time to file the supplemental clerk’s record as directed by the Court’s May 29, 2014 order. The time to file the supplemental clerk’s record is EXTENDED to THIRTY DAYS from the date of
this order.
We EXTEND the time for appellant to file his brief until SIXTY DAYS from the date of this
order.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
1 This minute order is issued pursuant to the express authority of the Honorable Robert E. 

Blackburn, United States District Judge for the District of Colorado. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Robert E. Blackburn

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-00422-REB

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. HA MANH DO, and

2. HAI MANH DO,

Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER1

A Notice of Disposition was filed on behalf of defendant Hai Manh Do on June

11, 2012, and a Notice of Disposition was filed on behalf of defendant Ha Manh Do on

June 13, 2012. . A Joint Change of Plea hearing is set for these two defendants, on

October 19, 2012, at 10:00 a.m. Counsel for the parties shall deliver or e-mail a

courtesy copy of all change of plea documents separately to Judge Blackburn’s

chambers AND to the Probation Department not later than 48 hours before the

change of plea hearing date. See D.C.COLO.LCrR 11.1C. If the documents are not

timely submitted, the hearing will be vacated. There will be no exceptions to this policy. 

On the date of the hearing, counsel shall then bring with them an original and one (1)

copy of the plea agreement and the statement in advance. See D.C.COLO.LCrR 11.1F

Dated: July 12, 2012