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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE SEOND
QUARTER 10-Q FILING AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000769879
<NAME> RECYCLING INDUSTRIES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                             527
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     5694
<ALLOWANCES>                                        20
<INVENTORY>                                       2456
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  9502
<PP&E>                                           22873
<DEPRECIATION>                                    2418
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   35582
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             7485
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        907
<COMMON>                                            13
<OTHER-SE>                                       14635
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     35582
<SALES>                                          23502
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 23502
<CGS>                                            19813
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    19813
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  2663
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 889
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    171
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (295)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                466
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       466
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT
        32.1**
 
 **Certification
        of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer**
 **Pursuant
        to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted**
 **Pursuant
        to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**
 
  I,
        Jay O.
        Wright, certify to the best of my knowledge based upon a review of the Quarterly
        Report on Form 10-Q of MobilePro Corp. for the quarter ended September 30,
        2008
        (the “Form 10-Q”), that the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements
        of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
        that
        information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
        respects, the financial condition and results of operations of MobilePro
        Corp.
        for the periods covered by the Form 10-Q.
  Dated: November
                14, 2008
              By:/s/ Jay O. WrightJay
                  O. Wright, Chief Executive
                  Officer
 
  I,
        Donald
        L. Paliwoda, certify to the best of my knowledge based upon a review of the
        Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MobilePro Corp. for the quarter ended September
        30, 2008 (the “Form 10-Q”), that the Form 10-Q fully complies with the
        requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
        amended, and that information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents,
        in all
        material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
        MobilePro Corp. for the periods covered by the Form 10-Q.
  Dated: November
                14, 2008
              By:/s/ Donald L. PaliwodaDonald
                  L. Paliwoda, Chief Accounting
                  Officer
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03- 10 -00 112 -CV In r e Da vid H. D isr ae li ORI GINAL PRO CEEDING FRO M TRAVIS COUNTY M E M O R

A N D UM O P I N I O N Relator filed his petition for wr it of mandamus on Fe bruar y 26, 2010. He ha s since filed an emer g ency motion to stay g arnishment and motion to reduc e trial court’s superse deas bond. SeeTex. R. App. P . 52.8, 52.10. Having revie wed relator’s filings, the r ecor d provided, a nd the re al party in interest’s re ply , we de ny the petition for wr it of mandamus an doverr ule the eme rg ency motion and motion t o reduc e bond. Relator’s moti on to stay , filed Mar ch 12, 2010, is dismissed.

__________________________________________ David Pury ear , J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Pury ear and Waldrop Filed: Apr il 9, 2010
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7448

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

STOVER STOCKTON, a/k/a Big Ox,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District Judge.

(1:99-cr-00352-MJG; 1:06-cv-01949-MJG)

Submitted: November 15, 2006 Decided: November 27, 2006

Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stover Stockton, Appellant Pro Se. James G. Warwick, Andrea L.

Smith, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Stover Stockton seeks to appeal the district court’s

order treating his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a successive 28

U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and dismissing it on that basis. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000);

Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate

of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of

the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)

(2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong

and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is

likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38

(2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee,

252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Stockton has not made the

requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Additionally, we construe Stockton’s notice of appeal and

informal brief as an application to file a second or successive

motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. United States v. Winestock, 340

F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to

file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims
- 3 -

based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously

unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on

collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence, not previously

discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to

establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for

constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the

movant guilty of the offense. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(2), 2255

(2000). Stockton’s claims do not satisfy either of these criteria.

Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2255

motion. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         292,013
<SECURITIES>                                   100,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,539,270
<ALLOWANCES>                                   165,867
<INVENTORY>                                  1,217,238
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,112,258
<PP&E>                                       1,391,014
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,108,219
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,572,438
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,258,636
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,584
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,556,778
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,572,438
<SALES>                                      4,391,778
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,391,778
<CGS>                                        2,507,969
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,165,670
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                17,413
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              27,636
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                198,472
<INCOME-TAX>                                    54,602
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            143,870
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 52,202
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   196,072
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .06
                                             

</TABLE>
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

KEVIN MICHAEL TOLIVER, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-2649 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed May 25, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Daniel L. Perry, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Richard J. Sanders, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Donna S. Koch, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CRENSHAW and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., and GENTILE, GEOFFREY H., ASSOCIATE JUDGE, Concur.
OHR Pharmaceutical, Inc. 10-K


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





Not Filed Pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934








In connection with the Quarterly Report of Ohr Pharmaceutical, Inc (the “Company”) on Form 10K for the period ending September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof )the “Report”), I, IrachTaraporewala, 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 results of operations of the Company.








Dated: January 13, 2011








/s/  IrachTaraporewala


Name:  Irach Taraporewala


Title: Chief Executive officer
#### LOLA HOROWITZ v. MICHAEL WEINGARTEN.

June 13, 1985.

Petition for certification denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND RELATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AS OF
JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER>                                                  1

<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                   MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-END>                                        JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                                  193,452
<SECURITIES>                                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                         2,896,710
<ALLOWANCES>                                             90,626
<INVENTORY>                                           2,046,356
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      5,205,412
<PP&E>                                                2,132,212
<DEPRECIATION>                                        1,400,150
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        6,900,827
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 2,610,873
<BONDS>                                                       0
<COMMON>                                                  3,847
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                                   0
<OTHER-SE>                                            5,762,557
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          6,900,827
<SALES>                                               2,270,201
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      2,270,201
<CGS>                                                 1,067,526
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         2,153,335
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       33,960
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          82,906
<INCOME-TAX>                                             12,329
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      70,577
<DISCONTINUED>                                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                               0
<CHANGES>                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                             70,577
<EPS-BASIC>                                               .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                               .02


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                            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 Cole National Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended May 3, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of
the undersigned officers of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to such officer's knowledge:

         (1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2)      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods
                  expressed in the Report.

Date: June 16, 2003
                              /s/ Jeffrey A. Cole
                              -------------------------------
                              Name: Jeffrey A. Cole
                              Title: Chief Executive Officer

                              /s/ Lawrence E. Hyatt
                              -------------------------------
                              Name: Lawrence E. Hyatt
                              Title: Chief Financial Officer

         The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a
separate disclosure document.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### APR 8 1999 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

HEULON L. PERRIN, JR., also known as Heulon Perrin, Jr.,

Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 98-1389
v. D. Colorado CITIES OF DENVER, BOULDER, AND LAKEWOOD, COLORADO,

Defendants - Appellees, DENVER MAYOR WEBB, AND BOULDER MAYOR BOB GREENEE,

Defendants. (D.C. No. 98-D-1627)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before ANDERSON , KELLY , and BRISCOE , Circuit Judges.-2-

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34 (a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. The district court dismissed Heulon L. Perrin, Jr.’ s civil rights suit, without prejudice to his ability to refile if he complied w ith the rules of the court, including filing sanctions imposed on Mr. Perrin bythe district court on September 10, 1991. The court did not err in dismi ssing this case without prejudice. Mr. Perrin’s motion for leave to proceed without pr epayment of costs or fees is DENIED, and this appeal is DISMISSED on the grounds that it is frivolous. ENTERED FOR THE COURT Stephen H. Anderson Circuit Judge
**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 Of 2002
 
 In
        connection with the Quarterly Report of Nayna Networks, Inc. (formerly ResCon
        Technology Corp.), on Form 10-QSB/A-1 for the period ended June 30, 2006,
        as
        filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
        "Report"), the undersigned, Naveen S. Bisht, Principal 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, as amended; 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:
                  December 22, 2006*
              *By:*
              */S/
                  Naveen S. Bisht**Naveen
                  S. Bisht,*
                *Principal
                  Executive Officer*
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2381 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2381

To clarify that any private flood insurance policy accepted by a State 
   shall satisfy the mandatory purchase requirement under the Flood 
                    Disaster Protection Act of 1973.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 22, 2014

Mr. Heller (for himself and Mr. Tester) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, 
                           and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To clarify that any private flood insurance policy accepted by a State 
   shall satisfy the mandatory purchase requirement under the Flood 
                    Disaster Protection Act of 1973.

    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 ``Flood Insurance Market Parity and 
Modernization Act of 2014''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORITY OF STATES TO REGULATE PRIVATE FLOOD INSURANCE.

    Paragraph (7) of section 102(b) of the Flood Disaster Protection 
Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. 4012a(b)(7)) is amended to read as follows:
            ``(7) Private flood insurance defined.--In this subsection, 
        the term `private flood insurance' means an insurance policy 
        that--
                    ``(A) provides flood insurance coverage;
                    ``(B) is issued by an insurance company that is--
                            ``(i) licensed, admitted, or otherwise 
                        approved to engage in the business of insurance 
                        in the State or jurisdiction in which the 
                        insured building is located, by the insurance 
                        regulator of that State or jurisdiction; or
                            ``(ii) eligible as a nonadmitted insurer to 
                        provide insurance in the State or jurisdiction 
                        where the property to be insured is located, in 
                        accordance with sections 521 through 527 of the 
                        Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 
                        Protection Act (15 U.S.C. 8201 through 8206); 
                        and
                    ``(C) is issued by an insurance company that is not 
                otherwise disapproved as a surplus lines insurer by the 
                insurance regulator of the State or jurisdiction where 
                the property to be insured is located.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### IN RE MERRITT

No. 493PA00

Case below: 140 N.C. App. 151

Motion by respondent for temporary stay allowed 25 October 2000 pending determination of further proceedings, if any, by this court. Petition by respondent for writ of supersedeas allowed 20 December 2000. Notice of appeal by respondent pursuant to G.S. 7A-30 (substantial constitutional question) dismissed 20 December 2000. Petition by respondent for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 allowed 20 December 2000. Petition by respondent for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals dismissed 20 December 2000.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No.24-0024

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

SHANE WAYNE STANLEY,

Defendant and Appellant.

GRANT

Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the 

Appellant is given an extension of time until June 3, 2024, to prepare, 

file, and serve the Appellant’s opening brief.

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

April 25 2024

04/25/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0024