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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BATTLE
MOUNTAIN GOLD COMPANY QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 2000, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000           DEC-31-1999<F1>
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000           DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          11,200                67,500
<SECURITIES>                                         0                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,700                36,700
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                     0
<INVENTORY>                                     31,800                31,100
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                98,200               143,200
<PP&E>                                         835,000               903,400
<DEPRECIATION>                                 560,000               603,800
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 431,300               568,500
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           95,800                88,900
<BONDS>                                        155,100               176,800
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                     0
<PREFERRED>                                    110,600               110,600
<COMMON>                                        13,500                13,200
<OTHER-SE>                                    (61,300)               (5,100)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   431,000               568,500
<SALES>                                        179,100                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               179,100                     0
<CGS>                                          160,300                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  160,300                     0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,600                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,200                     0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (22,000)                     0
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,300                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (23,300)                     0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                     0
<CHANGES>                                            0                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (28,900)                     0
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.13)                     0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.13)                     0
<FN>
<F1>AS RESTATED
</FN>


</TABLE>
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed

November 3, 2016.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-16-00853-CV

IN RE GUS MENDIZABAL, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

10th District Court

Galveston County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 15CV0919

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On October 25, 2016, relator Gus Mendizabal filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West 2004); see also 

Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to compel the Honorable 

John D. Kinard, Galveston County District Clerk, to receive and file all papers in 

the underlying case, inform relator of all proceedings in the case, and notify the 

district court that a trial date should be set.
2

This court’s mandamus jurisdiction is governed by section 22.221 of the 

Texas Government Code. Section 22.221 expressly limits the mandamus 

jurisdiction of the courts of appeals to: (1) writs against a district court judge or a 

county court judge in the court of appeals’ district; and (2) all writs necessary to 

enforce the court of appeals’ jurisdiction. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221. The 

district clerk is not a district court or county court judge in this court’s district, and 

relator has not shown that the issuance of a writ compelling the requested relief is 

necessary to enforce this court’s appellate jurisdiction. Therefore, we do not have 

jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against the district clerk.

Accordingly, we dismiss relator’s petition for writ of mandamus for lack of 

jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jamison, McCally, and Wise.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-30511 Summary Calendar

JAMES CARDEC, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus ED C. DAY, Warden; RICHARD IEYOUB, Attorney General, State of Louisiana, Respondents-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 97-CV-1572-N

- - - - - - - - - - March 10, 1999 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * James Cardec, a Louisiana prisoner (# 109107), appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Cardec argues that his rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause were violated when he was convicted of manslaughter and an underlying felony, aggravated burglary, when he had initially been charged with first-degree murder.No. 98-30511 -2- Whether different statutes punish the same offense is determined by the standard announced in Blockburger v. United
States , 284 U.S. 299 (1932). Brown v. Ohio , 432 U.S. 161, 166 (1977). The Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits prosecution for both a felony-murder and the underlying felony. Harris v. Oklahoma , 433 U.S. 682, 682-83 (1977). Because Cardec pleaded guilty to manslaughter and aggravated burglary, and because he does not challenge the voluntariness of that plea, he may prevail only if the face of the indictments or state-court record establishes that his convictions violate double jeopardy. Broce v. United States , 488 U.S. 563, 574-75 (1989). The state trial court rejected Cardec’s double-jeopardy challenge because “the evidence necessary to prove the additional charge of aggravated burglary was not the same evidence needed to convict [Cardec] of manslaughter.” Neither the indictments nor the record on appeal affirmatively show that Cardec was subjected to a double-jeopardy violation. Cardec cannot show that the state-court decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States[.]” See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.2





Certification by the Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



Pursuant to 18 U. S. C. Section 1350, I,
Solin Hoem, hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Glorywin Entertainment Group
Inc. for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2016 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Glorywin Entertainment Group Inc.



|Date: June 13, 2022 |  | /s/ Solin Hoem          | 
|------------------- |  | ----------------------- | 
|                    |  | Solin Hoem              | 
|                    |  | Chief Financial Officer |
Exhibit 10(a)(2)

                         VANGUARD CELLULAR SYSTEMS, INC.
                        AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


      AMENDMENT, made and entered into as of the 21st day of September, 1998 to
Employment Agreement dated as of the 1st day of March, 1995 (the "Original
Agreement"), by and between Vanguard Cellular Systems, Inc., a North Carolina
corporation (the "Company"), and Stephen R. Leeolou (the "Employee").

      WHEREAS, the Original Agreement contains a noncompetition covenant
generally providing that the Employee will not for a term of one year following
termination of his employment with the Company compete with the Company; and

      WHEREAS, since 1995 the telecommunications industry has dramatically
changed such that the language of the noncompetition agreement is now overly
broad;

      WHEREAS, the parties wish to revise the noncompetition in a manner that
will protect the Company while not inappropriately limiting the activities of
the Employee;

      NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed as follows:

      1. Section 9(a)(i) of the Original Agreement is hereby amended to read in
its entirety as follows:

            "(i) He will not, directly or indirectly, own any interest in,
      manage, operate, control, be employed by, render consulting or advisory
      services to, or participate in or be connected with the management or
      control of any business that is then engaged in the operation of a
      cellular telephone or paging system (or any competitive communication
      system then operated by the Company) in substantial competition with the
      Company in the Territory if the involvement or services of the Employee
      with such business relates to its operations located within the
      Territory;"

      2. Except as amended hereby, the Original Agreement shall remain in full
force and effect.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the day
and year first above written.

                              VANGUARD CELLULAR SYSTEMS, INC.



                              By:  /s/ Haynes G. Griffin           
                                 -------------------------
                                   Haynes G. Griffin
                                   Chairman


                                   /s/ Stephen R. Leeolou         
                                 -------------------------
                                   Stephen R. Leeolou
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS

We hereby consent to the use by
SandRidge Mississippian Trust I (the Trust) of our name and to the inclusion of information taken from the reports listed below in the Trusts Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012, filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on or about March 15, 2013, as well as to the incorporation by reference thereof into the Trusts Registration Statements on Form S-3 (File No. 333-184561):

December 31, 2012, SandRidge Mississippian Trust I Interest in Certain Properties located in Oklahoma  SEC Price Case

December 31, 2011, SandRidge Mississippian Trust I Interest in Certain Properties located in Oklahoma  SEC Price
Case



NETHERLAND, SEWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.By:

/s/ G. Lance BinderG. Lance Binder, P.E.Executive Vice President


Dallas, Texas

March 14, 2013
Exhibit 32



Certification of Chief Executive Officer



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Pemco Aviation Group,
Inc. (the company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



(a) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the company for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2004 (the Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



(b) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the company.



|                    |  |                         
|------------------- |  | ------------------------
|Dated: May 13, 2004 |  | /s/    Ronald A. Aramini
|                    |  | Ronald A. Aramini       
|                    |  | President and           
|                    |  | Chief Executive Officer 



---

Certification of Chief Financial Officer



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Pemco Aviation Group, Inc. (the company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



(a) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the company for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



(b) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the company.



|                    |  |                        
|------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Dated: May 13, 2004 |  | /s/    John R. Lee     
|                    |  | John R. Lee            
|                    |  | Sr. Vice President and 
|                    |  | Chief Financial Officer



The foregoing certifications are being
furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and are not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and are not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the
company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.



Signed originals of these written statements required by Section 906 have 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.
News United States Air Force
 Second annual enlisted RPA pilot selection board convenes at AFPCPublished Jan. 18, 2018
                        
                        By  Kat Bailey
                        
                        
                        Air Force’s Personnel Center Public Affairs
                **JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO-RANDOLPH, Texas (AFNS) --**
                The second annual enlisted remotely piloted aircraft pilot selection board meets at the Air Force Personnel Center this week to identify the next enlisted group to attend RPA pilot training as part of the deliberate approach to enhance the Air Force’s Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance mission.  
AFPC has received complete application packages from 134 enlisted Airmen who are setting a historic precedent within the RPA community. 
“Integrating enlisted pilots into the RQ-4 community enables the Air Force to meet mission requirements as the ISR mission grows, while tapping into the talent of our skilled, diverse and innovative enlisted force,” said Senior Master Sgt. Holger Dunwald, AFPC enlisted aircrew assignments manager at. 
AFPC has played an integral role in executing the new policies, running the selection board and executing the career management of the new enlisted RPA pilots. 
“The Air Force has an incredibly talented pool of enlisted Airmen, and we're confident that a rigorous selection process will yield excellent enlisted aircrew who will continue to provide combatant commanders with the ISR they need to win today's fight,” Dunwald said. 
The selection board mirrors that of the undergraduate flying training program as closely as possible and looks at each applicant’s entire military personnel record. 
“This ‘whole person’ concept provides the measure of an applicant's aptitude for success in RPA pilot training,” Dunwald added. 
AFPC will release the board results, expecting to select 40 Airmen from the pool of 134, by the end of February. The application window for the 2019 board will open in April.
For more information on the enlisted RPA pilot application process, visit the active-duty enlisted Assignments page on **myPers** from a CAC-enabled computer, or select “Active Duty Enlisted” from the myPers dropdown menu and search “Enlisted Pilot.”
For more information about Air Force personnel programs, visit myPers. Eligible individuals who do not have a myPers account can request one by **following these instructions**.Air Force 



intelligence 



surveillance 



ISR 



pilot 



AF 



RPA 



selection board 



Air Force Personnel Center 



application 



Global Hawk 



RQ-4 



integration 



reconnaissance 



Remotely Piloted Aircraft 



joint base 



JB San Antonio 



board 



enlisted RPA pilot 



package 



AFPC
News United States Air Force
 NOAA offers hurricane safety tips, resourcesPublished Sept. 3, 2019
                        
                        By Staff Sgt. Diana Cossaboom
                        
                        
                        403rd Wing Public Affairs
                **KEESLER AIR FORCE BASE, Miss. (AFNS) --**
                As the eastern seaboard prepares for Hurricane Dorian, the fourth hurricane of the 2019 season, staying prepared and having a plan is critical to surviving a potential disaster.
During the 2019 Hurricane Awareness Tour, organizations shared insights on how to prepare and stay aware of tropical weather systems that affect different areas, including those more inland.
“Ninety percent of the fatalities of tropical systems historically are from the water,” said Ken Graham, National Hurricane Center director. “In the last three years, 83 percent of fatalities from tropical systems have been inland flooding, more than half in automobiles.”
Graham also emphasized that the lower category hurricanes require just as much consideration for preparation due to their ability to cause catastrophic damage.
“In the last decade, Category 1 storms have produced $103 billion worth of damage and 175 fatalities,” Graham said.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration offers tips to help prepare for hurricanes.**Gather information.** The NOAA emphasizes to “know if you live in an evacuation area. Assess your risks and know your home's vulnerability to storm surge, flooding and wind. Understand National Weather Service forecast products and especially the meaning of NWS watches and warnings.”**Plan and take action.** Put together a disaster supplies kit which has items including water, food, a flashlight and a first aid kit. To see the full suggested contents of the kit, visit https://www.ready.gov/build-a-kit.
Planning and taking action includes having an emergency plan, guarding the community’s health, protecting the environment, following instructions from local officials for evacuation and be alert for other potential weather hazards including tornadoes brought in by the hurricane.**Recover.** This highlights the need to wait for the area to be declared safe before returning home, and to remember that recovery takes time.**Resources.** Know the resources offered for preparation before a hurricane occurs as well as the resources available for recovery including the **NOAA**, Ready.gov, and the **National Weather Service**.LR 



USAF 



AF 



Air Force 



Keesler AFB 



NOAA 



National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 



2019 Hurricane Awareness Tour 



National Hurricane Center 



AFRC 



Air Force Reserve Command 



National Weather Service 



safety 



Hurricane Dorian Updates
No. 12,266.

#### Burkett et al. *v.*Bowen.

Filed Dec. 9, 1885.

Change of *Judge.*— Proceedings *Supplementary to Execution.*— “Oivil *Action.”*—A proceeding supplementary to execution is a civil action within the meaning of sections 412-417, R. S. 1881, providing for a change of venue or a change of judge; and it will be error in such case to overrule a proper motion for a change of judge.

From the Fulton Circuit Court.

*M. R. Smith*and *G. W. Holman,*for appellants.

*J. Rowley*and *M. A. Baker,*for appellee.

Howk, J.

This was a proceeding, by the appellee against the appellants, supplementary to execution. The controlling question in the case is, whether or not such a proceeding is. a civil action within the meaning of sections 412 to 417, R. S. 1881, which authorize and provide for a change of venue- or a change of judge. This question was carefully considered by this court in the recent case of *Burkett*v. *Holman,, ante,*p. 6, and the conclusion was there reached that a proceeding supplementary to execution is a civil action within the meaning of the sections above cited of our civil code. Upon the authority of the case cited, this cause must be decided as that was; and we therefore hold, in the case at bar, that the trial court erred in overruling appellant’s motion for a change of judge. This ruling was assigned by appellants as cause for a new trial in their motion therefor, and for this-cause the motion for a new trial ought to have been sustained.

Upon the general question as to what must be considered “civil actions” within the scope and meaning of the statutes of this State, we cite also the case of *Powell*v. *Powell, ante,*p. 18.

The judgment is reversed with costs, and the cause is remanded with instructions to sustain the motion for a new trial, and for further proceedings not inconsistent with this, opinion.
Exhibit 13.1




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) AND 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 Dragon Bright Mintai Botanical Technology (Cayman) Limited (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the period ended December 31, 2012 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 to her and his 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.





Wing Kui SYInterim Chief FinancialOfficer




Date: June 17, 2013
HLD-006 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 18-2484

___________

IN RE: JAMES H. CAMPBELL,

Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(Related to M.D. Pa. Civ. No. 3-16-cv-00524)

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

July 12, 2018

Before: Chief Judge SMITH, CHAGARES, and BIBAS, Circuit Judges

(Opinion Filed: September 4, 2018)

_________

OPINION*

_________

PER CURIAM

In July 2018, James H. Campbell filed this pro se mandamus petition requesting 

that the District Court be compelled to rule on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. When 

Campbell filed this mandamus petition, his § 2241 petition had been pending for over 

two years. However, on August 21, 2018, the District Court entered an opinion and order 

 * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.
2

denying Campbell’s § 2241 petition. In light of the District Court’s action, this 

mandamus petition no longer presents a live controversy. Therefore, we will dismiss it as 

moot. See Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698-99 (3d Cir. 1996) (“If 

developments occur during the course of adjudication that eliminate a plaintiff’s personal 

stake in the outcome of a suit or prevent a court from being able to grant the requested 

relief, the case must be dismissed as moot.”).
No. 87-1130.

#### Beattie et al., by and Through Their Next Friend, Beattie *v.*United States; and Greisen *v.*United States.

No. 87-1244.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.