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

<ARTICLE>            5
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             Sep-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                  Dec-31-1997
<CASH>                                  436,056
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                           105,644
<ALLOWANCES>                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        671,653
<PP&E>                                7,847,396
<DEPRECIATION>                        2,811,387
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        5,907,348
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   232,012
<BONDS>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                            1,452,987
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          5,907,348
<SALES>                                 333,298
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        346,743
<CGS>                                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        364,170
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         (17,427)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           0
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                            (17,427)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                             (2.65)
<EPS-DILUTED>                             (2.65)
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 31.2**CERTIFICATIONI, Carl J. Landeck, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Bally Total Fitness Holding Corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b) designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internalcontrol over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonableassurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financialstatements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andd) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction):a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.   Date:November 30, 2005 /s/ Carl J. Landeck     Carl J. Landeck
#### Baggett *v.*State.

Opinion delivered June 26, 1922.

1. Time — mode op computation. — Where on March 9th, after motion for new trial overruled, defendant was granted 45 days to file a bill of exceptions, the filing of such bill on April 24th following was not valid; the time being computed by excluding the first and including the last day of the period allowed.

2. Criminal law — matters reviewable. — The overruling of a motion for a continuance will not be considered, in the absence of a bill of exceptions containing the motion and showing that an exception to the court’s ruling was saved.

Appeal from Howard Circuit Court, *James S. Steel,*Judge;

affirmed.

Appellant *pro se.*

*J. S. Utley,*Attorney General; *Elbert Godwin*and *W. T. Hammock,*Assistants, for appellee.

Hart, J.

Kelsey Baggett prosecutes this appeal to reverse a judgment of conviction against him for the statutory crime of deserting his wife without good cause.

He was given forty-five days within which to prepare and file his bill of exceptions. There is in the transcript what purports to be a bill of exceptions in the ease. *334It was not filed within forty-five days, according to the rule laid down in the case of *Early & Co.*v. *Maxwell & Co.,*103 Ark. 569.

In that case the court‘held that where time is allowed iby the trial judge for filing a "bill of exceptions beyond the term, for a given number of days, the rule for computing the time allowed is to exclude the day on which the order granting the time is made and include the last day.

The motion for a new trial was overruled, and the defendant granted forty-five days to prepare and file his bill of exceptions on March 9, 1922. The purported bill of exceptions.was not filed until the 24th day of April, 1922. This was not within the time given, and we cannot, therefore, consider the assignments of error in it. '

One of the alleged assignments of error is that the court erred in refusing to grant the defendant a motion for a continuance.

In *Johnson*v. *State,*142 Ark. 402, it was held that the overruling of a motion for a continuance will not be considered on appeal where the bill of exceptions does not contain the motion or show that any exceptions were saved to its overruling.

The other alleged assignments of error relate to the admissibility of evidence and the instructions given or refused by the court. That we cannot consider these matters in the absence of a bill of exceptions is so well settled in this State that no citation of authorities on the point is necessary.

There is no error on the face of the record, and the judgment must therefore be affirmed.
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2758 

To authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to modernize C–130 aircraft 

using alternative communication, navigation, surveillance, and air traffic 

management program kits and to ensure that such aircraft meet applicable regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 31, 2014 

Mr. TESTER (for himself, Mr. PRYOR, Mr. BEGICH, Mr. WALSH, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. ENZI, and Mr. CARPER) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 

Armed Services 

A BILL 

To authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to modernize 

C–130 aircraft using alternative communication, navigation, surveillance, and air traffic management program 

kits and to ensure that such aircraft meet applicable 

regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration. 

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

3 SECTION 1. C–130 FLEET MODERNIZATION. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of modernizing the 

5 C–130 aircraft fleet, the Secretary of the Air Force (re6 ferred to in this section as the ‘‘Secretary’’) may install 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2758 IS

1 alternative communication, navigation, surveillance, and 

2 air traffic management program kits in lieu of C–130 air3 craft avionics modernization program kits if the Sec4 retary— 

5 (1) determines, on a case-by-case basis, that 

6 such alternative program is appropriate; and 

7 (2) notifies the congressional defense commit8 tees (as defined in section 101(a)(16) of title 10, 

9 United States Code) of such determination. 

10 (b) COMPATIBILITY WITH FAA REGULATIONS.—The 

11 Secretary shall ensure that all C–130 aircraft are capable 

12 of meeting applicable regulations of the Federal Aviation 

13 Administration by January 1, 2020. 

14 (c) AUTHORIZATION OF USE OF FISCAL YEAR 2013 

15 AND 2014 FUNDS.—The Secretary may use amounts au16 thorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available 

17 for fiscal year 2013 or 2014 for the Air Force for the 

18 C–130 aircraft avionics modernization program that re19 main available for obligation as of the date of the enact20 ment of this Act to carry out this section. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Each of the undersigned, in his capacity as an officer of REMEC, Inc. (the Registrant), 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 quarterly report of the Registrant on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 29, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Thomas H. WaechterThomas H. Waechter President and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Winston E. HickmanWinston E. Hickman Chief Financial and Accounting Officer




Date: June 8, 2005
#### JACK HARPER v. JOSEPH CANNON.

July 10, 1985.

Petition for certification denied.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 70 (Monday, May 1, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S5909]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                   EXECUTIVE AND OTHER COMMUNICATIONS

  The following communications were laid before the Senate, together 
with accompanying papers, reports, and documents, which were referred 
as indicated:

       EC-746. A communication from the Assistant Secretary of 
     Defense (Economic Security), transmitting, pursuant to law, 
     the report on the Metric Transition Program; to the Committee 
     on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
       EC-747. A communication from the Secretary of 
     Transportation, transmitting, a draft proposed legislation 
     entitled ``The Commercial Space Launch Act Amendments of 
     1995''; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation.
     

                          ____________________
```
EXHIBIT 32.1

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 Annual Report of Barrier Therapeutics, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Geert Cauwenbergh, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, based on my knowledge, that:

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

(2) The information contained
in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



|                                                                                           
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Geert Cauwenbergh, Ph.D. Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
|                                                                                           
|March 12, 2007
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 13, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-20554

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JONATHAN CHIMNEY,

Defendant-Appellant.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-02-CR-362-1

 

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jonathan Chimney pled guilty to a two-count indictment

charging him with conspiracy and possession of more than fifty

grams of cocaine base, commonly known as crack cocaine, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846. Chimney admitted to

possession of 53.7 grams of cocaine base. The PSR recommended a

base offense level of 32, a two-level enhancement for Chimney’s
1 See United States v. Chimney, 88 Fed. Appx. 777, 2004 WL 326764 (5th

Cir. Feb. 18, 2004) (unpublished).

2 See Newsome v. United States, 125 S.Ct. 1112 (2005). 

3 United States v. Mares, --- F.3d ----, 2005 WL 503715, *7 (5th Cir.

2005).

2

aggravating role in the offense as an organizer/leader, and a

three-level reduction for timely acceptance of responsibility,

producing in a total offense level of 31. The resulting guidelines

imprisonment range, after accounting for the statutory mandatory

minimum sentence of ten years, was 120-135 months. The district

court imposed the maximum guidelines sentence of 135 months’

imprisonment. We affirmed.1 The Supreme Court vacated our

judgment and remanded to us for further consideration in light of

United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. ----, 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005).2

Chimney argues that his sentence should be vacated in light of

Booker because the two-level enhancement was made on the basis of

disputed facts under a mandatory guidelines system. Because

Chimney did not raise a Booker-type objection in the district

court, we review only for plain error.3 As we recently described

in United States v. Mares, 

[a]n appellate court may not correct an error

the defendant failed to raise in the district

court unless there is (1) error, (2) that is

plain, and (3) that affects substantial

rights. If all three conditions are met an

appellate court may then exercise its

discretion to notice a forfeited error but

only if (4) the error seriously affects the

fairness, integrity, or public reputation of
4 Id. at *8 (quoting United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 631 (2002))

(internal quotation marks omitted).

5 Id. at *9.

3

judicial proceedings.4

In the present case, the third prong has not been met.

Chimney has not carried his “burden of demonstrating that the

result would have likely been different had the judge been

sentencing under the Booker advisory regime rather than the

pre-Booker mandatory regime.”5

AFFIRMED.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. HARRY C. LEE.

May 14, 1985.

Petition for certification denied.
#### STATE v. BOYD

No. 34P01

Case below: 141 N.C. App. 350

Motion by the Attorney General for temporary stay allowed 18 January 2001.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  fianncial   information  extracted  from  the
condensed consolidated balance sheet at June 30, 1999 and consensed consolodated
statement  of income for the six months  ended June 30, 1999 and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000771790
<NAME>                        Steel Technologies Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           6,159
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   60,620
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (1,114)
<INVENTORY>                                     70,718
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               138,902
<PP&E>                                         178,030
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (69,617)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 277,116
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           52,163
<BONDS>                                         91,277
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        17,033
<OTHER-SE>                                     119,841
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   277,116
<SALES>                                        109,248
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               109,248
<CGS>                                           93,136
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   93,136
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,495
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,412
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,205
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,723
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,482
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,482
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .40



</TABLE>
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. FRANK RAMOS.

June 25, 1985.

Petition for certification denied.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED FEBRUARY 6, 2019

NO. 03-19-00023-CV

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Appellant

v.

Express Limousines, Inc. n/k/a Groovy Automotive I, Inc., and Charles Delmonico, 

Appellees

APPEAL FROM THE 53RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, BAKER, AND TRIANA

DISMISSED ON APPELLANT’S MOTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on December 13, 2018. 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, and having considered the 

motion, the Court agrees that the motion should be granted. Therefore, the Court grants the 

motion and dismisses the appeal. The appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in 

this Court and in the court below.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 November 24, 2015

p1116

Order 

Clerk

November 24, 2015

150540

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 150540

COA: 323751

St Clair CC: 14-000688-FH

WILLIAM BASIL LYNDS,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 16, 2014 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Exhibit 31.2 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Aaron D. Peck, certify that: 1.

          I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Monroe Capital Corporation; 2.

          Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3.

          Based on my knowledge, the consolidated financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4.

          The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a)

          Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; (b)

          Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and (c)

          Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and 5.

          The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): (a)

          All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and (b)

          Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting. Date: March 14, 2018 /s/ Aaron D. PeckAaron D. Peck Chief Financial Officer, Chief Investment Officer and Director(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) Monroe Capital Corporation