alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 1:11-cr-00430-CMA Document 261 Filed 11/25/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 10
Case 1:11-cr-00430-CMA Document 261 Filed 11/25/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 10
Case 1:11-cr-00430-CMA Document 261 Filed 11/25/13 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 10
Case 1:11-cr-00430-CMA Document 261 Filed 11/25/13 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 10
Case 1:11-cr-00430-CMA Document 261 Filed 11/25/13 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 10
Case 1:11-cr-00430-CMA Document 261 Filed 11/25/13 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 10
Case 1:11-cr-00430-CMA Document 261 Filed 11/25/13 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 10
Case 1:11-cr-00430-CMA Document 261 Filed 11/25/13 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 10
Case 1:11-cr-00430-CMA Document 261 Filed 11/25/13 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 10
Case 1:11-cr-00430-CMA Document 261 Filed 11/25/13 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 10
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 206 

To expand the HUBZone program for communities affected by base 

realignment and closure, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 31, 2013 

Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Mr. KING) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship 

A BILL 

To expand the HUBZone program for communities affected 

by base realignment and closure, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘HUBZone Expansion 

5 Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXPANDING HUBZONE PROGRAM FOR COMMU7 NITIES AFFECTED BY BASE REALIGNMENT 

8 AND CLOSURE. 

9 Section 3(p)(4)(D) of the Small Business Act (15 

10 U.S.C. 632(p)(4)(D)) is amended— 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 206 IS

1 (1) in clause (iv), by striking the period at the 

2 end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; 

3 (2) by redesignating clauses (i), (ii), (iii), and 

4 (iv) as subclauses (I), (II), (III), and (IV), respec5 tively, and moving the margins 2 ems to the right; 

6 (3) in the matter preceding subclause (I), as so 

7 redesignated, by striking ‘‘means lands within’’ and 

8 inserting the following: ‘‘means— 

9 ‘‘(i) lands within’’; and 

10 (4) by adding at the end the following: 

11 ‘‘(ii) a geographic area that— 

12 ‘‘(I) is— 

13 ‘‘(aa) the municipality in 

14 which the military installation is 

15 located; 

16 ‘‘(bb) the county in which 

17 the military installation is lo18 cated; or 

19 ‘‘(cc)(AA) the census tract 

20 in which the military installation 

21 is located; or 

22 ‘‘(BB) the census tract in 

23 which the military installation is 

24 located and a census tract contig25 uous to that census tract; and 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 206 IS

1 ‘‘(II) has a total population of 

2 not more than 50,000, as determined 

3 with reference to the most recent de4 cennial census.’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
**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 New Media Lottery Services, Inc. (the
        “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended April 30, 2005 as filed with the
        Securities and Exchange on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, in
        the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant
        to 18
        U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
        Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:
  1. The
        Report 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 operation of the Company.
  **SIGNATURE**
              **TITLE**
              **DATE**/s/
                Randolph H. Brownell, III
              Chief Financial
                  Officer
              July
                29, 2005Randolph
                H. Brownell, III
 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,
          or
          otherwise subject to liability under that section. This certification shall
          not
          be deemed incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities
          Act or
          Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates
          it
          by reference.
  A
          signed
          original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
          authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
          appears
          in typed form with the electronic version 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           5,221
<SECURITIES>                                   296,219
<RECEIVABLES>                               15,998,245
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                12,783
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              16,312,468
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          521,498
<BONDS>                                     15,560,603
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       184,960
<OTHER-SE>                                       45407
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                16,312,468
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               459,225
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  457,198
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,027
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,027
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .85
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Order entered June 3, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00055-CV

HIGHLAND CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LP, Appellant

V.

LOOPER REED & MCGRAW, P.C., N/K/A GRAY REED & MCGRAW, P.C., Appellee

On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-13-13352

ORDER

We GRANT appellant’s June 1, 2015 unopposed motion for extension of time to file 

reply brief and ORDER the brief be filed no later than July 6, 2015.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART 

JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This Schedule contains summary financial information extracted from 10QSB  and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         211,010
<SECURITIES>                                   667,186
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,274,288
<ALLOWANCES>                                    86,126
<INVENTORY>                                  3,903,929
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,423,227
<PP&E>                                       2,942,045
<DEPRECIATION>                                 580,979
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,705,449
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       21,688,042
<BONDS>                                      1,030,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        33,985
<OTHER-SE>                                 (7,494,578)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                15,705,449
<SALES>                                     30,442,903
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            30,442,903
<CGS>                                       26,251,204
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               26,251,204
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            12,112,542
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             978,049
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (7,920,843)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (7,920,843)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (7,920,843)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (.265)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.265)
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 13.2**

**906 Certification**

Securities and Exchange Commission 

100 F Street, N.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20549

Ladies and Gentlemen: 

The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F/A for the year ended December 31, 2011 (the “Report”) for the purpose of complyingwith the Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code. 

Andy Yang, the Chief Financial Officer of AU Optronics Corp., certifies that, to the best of his knowledge: 

1. the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and 

2. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofAU Optronics Corp. 

Date: September 26, 2012 

 

**The foregoing certification is not deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the ExchangeAct and is not deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act.**
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

DA 20-0585 

DONNIE LEE STANDLEY, 

Petitioner and Appellant, 

v. 

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Respondent and Appellee. 

INOV 1 7 2022 

Bovv wood 

C. 7,t Court 

t,,„ to ot ,,ontana 

ORDER 

Before this Court are three motions filed by self-represented Appellant Donnie Lee 

Standley. Standley moves to expand the record to include the record from federal cases in 

the United States District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. He moves to "copy 

forward service" because where he is incarcerated, he cannot make or pay for copies of 

any other documents. Lastly, Standley moves to request a waiver of the required service 

of copies to opposing counsel as well as to provide copies of other court decisions from his 

federal cases. The State has not filed a response to any of these motions, most likely in 

part due to the lack of service to the State. 

Upon review of this Court's docket for this appeal, Standley filed his reply brief on 

November 15, 2022, and on that day, the case was sent to this Court. We will ensure that 

opposing counsel receives a copy of the reply brief. This Court, however, cannot provide 

Standley with his other requested relief. We decline to expand the record to include his 

federal cases, because it is improper, and we decline to serve opposing counsel with his 

motions or other court documents. As a result, his request for a waiver is not necessary. 

A decision will be issued in due course. Therefore, 

IT IS ORDERED that Standley's Motion to Expand the Record, Motion Requesting 

Copy Forward Service, and Motion Requesting Court Order and Waiver of Procedural 

Compliance are all DENIED. 

11/17/2022

Case Number: DA 20-0585
The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel of record along with 

a copy of Standley's reply brief and to Donnie Lee Standley personally. 

DATED this ) --9-. -ffiy of November, 2022. 

For the Court, 

Chief Justice 

2
<PAGE>

                                                                      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 UAG Connecticut I, LLC (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, Roger
S. Penske Jr. and Thomas E. Schmitt, Principal Executive Officer and Principal
Financial Officer, respectively, of the Company, certify, 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.

/s/ Roger S. Penske, Jr.
-------------------------
Roger S. Penske, Jr.
Chairman of the Board,
(Principal Executive Officer)
March 30, 2004

/s/ Thomas E. Schmitt
-------------------------
Thomas E. Schmitt
Secretary & Treasurer
(Principal Financial Officer)
March 30, 2004

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to United Auto Group, Inc. and will be retained by United Auto Group,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
#### JEAN E. SKRIPEK v. ANGELO R. BERGAMO, M.D.

September 5, 1985.

Petition for certification denied. (See 200 *N.J.Super.*620)
#### Betty Stuart WELLS et al., Appellants, v. Hattie Jane MENSHOUSE (nee Sammons) and Louis P. Menshouse, Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Feb. 2, 1973.

Charles S. Sinnette, Ashland, for appellants.

W. Henderson Dysard, Ashland, for ap-pellees.

Opinion of the Court by

Special Commissioner WILLIAM G. FUQUA,

Affirming.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-02-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-05-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-04-1999
<CASH>                                           8,228
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   83,655
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (5,141)
<INVENTORY>                                     49,517
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               149,725
<PP&E>                                         102,634
<DEPRECIATION>                                (56,850)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 215,618
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           80,225
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           116
<OTHER-SE>                                      20,687
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   215,618
<SALES>                                        129,833
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               202,504
<CGS>                                           94,134
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  154,810
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                46,884
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,615
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,805)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        13
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,818)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,818)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.41)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.41)


</TABLE>
#### IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF JOHN MADIN/LORDLAND DEVELOPMENT INTERNATIONAL FOR PINELANDS DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL. PLANNING BOARD OF HAMILTON TOWNSHIP, ATLANTIC COUNTY v. JOHN MADIN, ET AL.

December 18, 1985.

Petition for certification granted.
# Supreme Court of Florida

____________ No. SC17

- 1778

____________ PABLO SAN MARTIN, Appellant,

vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. [February 28, 2018]
PER CURIAM. We have for review Pablo San Martin’s appeal of the circuit court’s order denying San Martin’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851. This Court has jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const.
San Martin ’s motion sought relief pursuant to the United States Supreme
Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida , 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), and our decision on
remand in Hurst v. State ( Hurst ), 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied , 137 S. Ct. 2161 (2017). After this Court decided Hitc hcock v. State , 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla.),
cert. denied , 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017) , San Martin responded to this Court’s order to show cause arguing why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case.- 2

-

After reviewing San Martin’s response to the order to show ca use, as well as the State’s arguments in reply, we conclude that San Martin is not entitled to relief.
San Martin was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by
a vote of nine to three

. San Martin v. State , 705 So. 2d 1337, 1342 (F la. 1997 ).
San Martin’s sentence of death became final in 1998

. San Martin v. Florida , 525
U.S. 841 ( 1998 ). Thus, Hurst does not apply retroactively to San Martin’s
sentence of death. See Hitchcock , 226 So. 3d at 217. Accordingly, we affirm the
denial of San Martin’s motion. The Court having carefully considered all arguments raised by San Martin , we caution that any rehearing motion containing reargument will be stricken. It is
so ordered.
LABARG A, C.J., and QUINCE, POLSTON, and LAWSON, JJ., concur. PARIENTE, J., concurs in result with an opinion. LEWIS and CANADY, JJ., concur in result. PARIENTE, J., concurring in result. I concur in result because I recognize that this Court’s opinion in Hitchco ck
v. State , 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied , 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017), is now final. However, I continue to adhere to the views expressed in my dissenting opinion in Hitchcock

. An Appeal from the Circuit Court in and for Dade County, Ellen Sue Ven zer , Judge

- Case No. 131992CF006089C000XX
Gustavo J. Garcia

- Montes, Miami, Florida,- 3

-

for Appellant Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney Ge neral, Tallahassee, Florida, Melissa J. Roca and Brian H. Zack , Assistant Attorney s General, Miami, Florida, for Appellee
Exhibit 32.1

 

Certification of Principal Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to 

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002

 

 

I, Leonard A. Rosenbaum, President and Chief Executive Officer of CVD Equipment Corporation, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge, the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2009 of CVD Equipment Corporation (the “Form 10-Q”) fully complies with the requirements of        Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of CVD Equipment Corporation.

 

| Dated: August 14, 2009 | /s/ Leonard A. Rosenbaum      |
|------------------------|-------------------------------|
|                   | Leonard A. Rosenbaum          |
|                   | Chief Executive Officer       |
|                   | (Principal Executive Officer) |
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. LOUIS WILLIAMS.

January 13, 1986.

Petition for certification denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-50921

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.

DAVID ALVAREZ,

Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:02-CR-88-1

Before WIENER, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

David Alvarez, federal prisoner #28318-180, filed a motion for a reduction

of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 709 to the

United States Sentencing Guidelines. The district court found that Amendment

709 did not apply retroactively and concluded that it lacked authority to modify

Alvarez’s sentence on this basis. It also denied leave to proceed in forma

pauperis (IFP) on appeal, certifying that Alvarez’s appeal was not taken in good

faith. By moving this court for leave to proceed IFP on appeal, Alvarez is

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 18, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 09-50921 Document: 00511266346 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/18/2010
No. 09-50921

challenging the district court’s certification that his appeal was not taken in good

faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).

Section 3582(c)(2) permits the discretionary modification of a defendant’s

sentence in certain cases where the sentencing range has been subsequently

lowered by the Sentencing Commission. United States v. Doublin, 572 F.3d 235,

237 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 517 (2009)). However, § 3582(c)(2) applies

only to retroactive guidelines amendments, as set forth in the guidelines policy

statement. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(a), (c); United States v. Shaw, 30 F.3d 26, 29

(5th Cir. 1994). Amendment 709 is not listed as an amendment covered by the

policy statement in § 1B1.10. See § 1B1.10(c). Alvarez also argues that, in light

of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), the district court erred in finding

that § 1B1.10 is mandatory and that Amendment 709 cannot be applied

retroactively. His argument is without merit. See Dillon v. United States, 130

S. Ct. 2683, 2692 (2010); Doublin, 572 F. 3d at 238.

Because Amendment 709 does not apply retroactively, the plain language

of § 3582(c) dictates that the district court is not authorized to reduce a sentence

based on Amendment 709. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); U.S.S.G. § 1B.10 cmt. n.1.

Therefore, Alvarez has not shown that his appeal presents a nonfrivolous issue.

Accordingly, his request for IFP is DENIED. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24.

Because his appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

Case: 09-50921 Document: 00511266346 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/18/2010
#### Kenneth HACK, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 17, 1974.

Kenneth Hack, pro se.

Ed W. Hancock, Atty. Gen., Peter C. Macdonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frankfort, for appellee.

Memorandum Opinion of the Court by

Justice STEPHENSON,

Affirming.*