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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from 
Davidson Diversified Real Estate III Limited Partnership 1998 First Quarter 
10-QSB and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such 10-QSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000773679
<NAME> DAVIDSON DIVERSIFIED REAL ESTATE III LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998   
<CASH>                                             189
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      369
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          34,019
<DEPRECIATION>                                (15,400)   
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  19,744   
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                         23,817     
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0     
<PREFERRED>                                          0  
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (4,845)    
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    19,744    
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,412    
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,638    
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 542    
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (226)     
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 (218.49)<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
#### LaVern L. ZAEHRINGER, Appellant, v. Lou V. BREWER, Warden, Iowa State Penitentiary, Appellee.

No. 79-1812.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

May 14, 1981.

Robert Bartels and Mark Genereux, Iowa City, Iowa, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Atty. Gen. of Iowa, Des Moines, Iowa, Thomas D. MeGrane, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

*734Before LAY, Chief Judge, BRIGHT and HENLEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM

ON REHEARING.

Subsequent to the filing of petition for rehearing herein, 635 F.2d 734 (8th Cir.), the Supreme Court handed down its opinion in *Chandler v.*Florida,-U.S.-, 101 S.Ct. 802, 66 L.Ed.2d 740 (1981), and appel- - lant filed his supplemental petition for rehearing.

We have considered the petition and supplemental petition in light of *Chandler.*While there is language in our opinion filed December 24, 1980 that might be said to be somewhat in conflict with some language used by the Supreme Court in *Chandler,*even so nothing in *Chandler*suggests a result here other than affirmance of the judgment of the district court. Thus, since under any reasoned application of *Chandler*to the facts now before us our result would be the same, we conclude that rehearing should be, and it is, denied.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Roy Anthony SINCLAIR.

No. 2010-KO-2718.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 29, 2011.

In re Sinclair, Roy Anthony; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Bienville, 2nd Judicial District Court Div. C, No. 36-087; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 45,625-KA.

Denied.
Exhibit 13.2
 CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.
  By:
    
    /s/ Chitung Liu

Name: Chitung LiuTitle:   Chief Financial Officer
 
 *
    
    A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to us and will be
retained by us and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
#### NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. HERMAN SAUSAGE CO., Inc., Respondent.

No. 17737.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

April 8, 1960.

*794Alfred Brummell, Atty., N. L. R. B., Thomas J. McDermott, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, N. L. R. B., Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., for petitioner.

Alexander E. Wilson, Jr., Atlanta, Ga., Waldo DeLoache, Moultrie, Ga., for respondent.

Before TUTTLE, BROWN and WISDOM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The Employer raises for the first time in this Court contentions as to § 2(c) of the Board’s order which calls for reinstatement of employees who went out on strike. This comes too late.

The Board has not yet determined which employees are to be reinstated or receive restitution, the time and amount thereof, as well as related matters. This will be done in supplemental proceedings allowing ample review. N. L. R. B. v. J. H. Rutter-Rex Manufacturing Co., 5 Cir., 1957, 245 F.2d 594, 597-598.

Petition denied.
#### STATE ex rel. Calvin SCOTT a/k/a Elliot J. Scott v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2011-KH-0431.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 2, 2011.

In re Scott, Calvin; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. D, No. 387-788; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-K-1741.

Denied.
**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





Pursuant
      to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
      section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
      undersigned officers of Cenveo, Inc., a Colorado corporation (the ‘‘Company’’),
      does hereby certify, to the best of such officer’s knowledge,
      that:




The
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three and six month periods ended June
      30,
      2007 (the ‘‘Form 10-Q’’) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of
      section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information
      contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
      financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date:
                  August 8, 2007/s/
                  ROBERTG.BURTON, SR.Robert
                  G. Burton, Sr..Chairman
                  and Chief Executive Officer
 
 
 Date:
                  August 8, 2007/s/
                  MARK S.
                  HILTWEINMark
                  S. HiltweinChief
                  Financial Officer


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 within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to Cenveo, Inc. and will be retained by
      Cenveo, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
      staff upon request.





The
      foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of
      the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter
      63
      of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form
      10-Q
      or as a separate disclosure document.
News United States Air Force
 Around the Air Force: April 8Published April 8, 2016
                        
                        By Air Force TV
                
                **FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS)** – This look around the Air Force takes us to Alaska where two F-35A Lightning II squadrons will join Eielson Air Force Base, and to the Philippines where service members are participating in the Balikatan exercise. Hosted by Staff Sgt. Traci Keller.
For previous episodes, click here for the Air Force TV page.
Related links:
- Balikatan Exercise Strengthens U.S.-Philippine Relationship
- Eielson selected to receive operational F-35A aircraftAround the Air Force 



CSAF 



Balikatan 



Philippines 



Eielson AFB 



Alaska 



ATAF
Exhibit 32
 CERTIFICATION OF QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q
OF ADVOCAT INC.
FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 2011
  (a)
    
    fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 (b)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
  /s/ William R. Council, IIIWilliam R. Council, IIIChief Executive Officer/s/ L. Glynn Riddle, Jr.L. Glynn Riddle, Jr.Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Derrick Moore, Appellant.

[773 NYS2d 873]

*174Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene Silver-man, J), rendered October 10, 2002, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court’s *Sandoval*ruling balanced the appropriate factors and was a proper exercise of discretion *(see People v Hayes,*97 NY2d 203 [2002]; *People v Walker,*83 NY2d 455, 458-459 [1994]; *People v Pavao,*59 NY2d 282, 292 [1983]). The court properly permitted elicitation of matters that were highly relevant to defendant’s credibility and were not unduly prejudicial.

While the court’s participation in examining witnesses was quite extensive, the court did not take on either the function or appearance of an advocate, or suggest to the jury that it had an opinion on the merits. Accordingly, defendant was not deprived of a fair trial *(see People v Robinson,*3 AD3d 404 [2004]).

Defendant was not deprived of his right to present a defense and to confront the witnesses against him when the court properly exercised its discretion to preclude cross-examination on matters of questionable relevance *(see Delaware v Van Arsdall,*475 US 673, 678-679 [1986]). In particular, defendant did not establish the relevance of inquiry into police procedures in observation sale cases, where in this case the police were not operating from an observation post, but instead were traveling by car when they happened upon drug activity. Concur— Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Ellerin, Williams and Lerner, JJ.
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-14-00077-CR

AARON LAMON MUSE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 402nd Judicial District Court

Wood County, Texas

Trial Court No. 20,589-2009

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Aaron Lamon Muse filed a notice of appeal April 2, 2014, attempting to appeal the trial 

court’s denial of his motion for the discovery of grand jury testimony. The clerk’s record filed in 

this matter establishes that in early 2009, Muse was charged by indictment with aggravated 

robbery. On February 6, 2013, the State filed a motion to dismiss its aggravated robbery case 

against Muse on the basis that he had been convicted in another case for the same conduct. On 

February 11, 2013, the 402nd Judicial District Court of Wood County granted the State’s motion 

and dismissed the case—trial court cause number 20,589-2009. On March 18, 2014, Muse filed 

a Motion for Discovery of Grand Jury Testimony with the Wood County District Clerk under 

cause number 20,589-2009. On March 19, 2014, the trial court signed an order overruling 

Muse’s motion. This is Muse’s attempt to appeal from that ruling.

By letter dated May 2, 2014, we notified Muse of a potential defect in our jurisdiction 

over his appeal—namely, that the order from which he was attempting to appeal is not an 

appealable order—and afforded him fifteen days to show this Court how we had jurisdiction. 

We received no response from Muse.

This Court has jurisdiction over criminal appeals only when expressly granted by law. 

TEX. CONST. art. V, § 6; Everett v. State, 91 S.W.3d 386, 386 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, no pet.)

(per curiam). A timely notice of appeal from a judgment of conviction or an appealable order is 

necessary to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction. Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 1996). Because there is no judgment or appealable order in the record from which a timely 
3

appeal could be perfected, we are without jurisdiction over the appeal and have no choice but to 

dismiss it.

In light of the foregoing, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: June 2, 2014

Date Decided: June 3, 2014

Do Not Publish
Exhibit 21.1  Subsidiaries of Force Protection, Inc.  Listed below are the subsidiaries of Force Protection, Inc. as of the date of this report.  Names of certain minor subsidiaries have been omitted.  Name of Subsidiary

Jurisdiction

Ownership PercentageForce Protection Technologies, Inc.

Nevada

100
%Force Protection Industries, Inc.(1)

Nevada

100
%·Force   Protection Survivability Solutions Canada, Inc.

Canada

100
%·Force   Protection Europe Limited(2)

England & Wales

100
%·Force Protection   Australasia Pty Ltd.

Australia

100
%·Integrated   Survivability Technologies Limited

England & Wales

50
%Force Dynamics LLC

Delaware

50
% 
 (1)  Force Protection Industries, Inc. has two subsidiaries Force Protection Europe Limited and Force Protection Survivability Solutions Canada, Inc. , both of which are 100% owned.  (2)  Force Protection Europe Limited has two subsidiaries, Force Protection Australasia Pty Ltd., of which it owns 100%, and Integrated Survivability Technologies, Limited,  of which it owns 50%.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.Section
1350, as adopted), Jonathan Morgan, Chief Executive Officer of First Virtual
Communications, Inc. (the "Company"), and Truman Cole, Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, each hereby certify that, to the best of their knowledge:

1.       The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March
31, 2003, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 99.1 (the
"QUARTERLY REPORT") fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

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

         A signed original 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 ("SEC") or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed
filed with the SEC and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of
the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the
Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such
filing.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have set their hands hereto as of
the 15th day of May, 2003.

                                                       /s/ Jonathan Morgan
                                                       ------------------------
                                                       Jonathan Morgan
                                                       Chief Executive Officer

                                                       /s/ Truman Cole
                                                       ------------------------
                                                       Truman Cole
                                                       Chief Financial Officer
583 A.2d 321

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JUDITH M. TOWFIGHI.

February 13, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
#### STATE ex rel. Frederic Lubron BIRGANS v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2011-KH-0166.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 4, 2011.

In re Birgans, Frederic Lubron; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. C-20103108; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,218-CW.

Denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

DONNA J. BARNHART,

Respondent

v.

JONATHAN L. BARNHART,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 85 WAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 29th day of June, 2016, the Petition for Allow ance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
Exhibit 23.1

 

SEALE AND BEERS, CPAs

*PCAOB & CPAB REGISTERED AUDITORS*

www.sealebeers.com

 

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLICACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

 

We consent to the use, in the statement onForm 10-K of ATVROCKN, of our report dated September 12, 2013 on our audit of the financial statements of ATVROCKN as of May 31,2013 and 2012, and the related statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and cash flows for the years then ended andfrom inception on December 27, 2010 through May 31, 2013, and the reference to us under the caption “Experts”.

 

 

 

***/s/******Seale and Beers, CPAs***

 

Seale and Beers, CPAs

Las Vegas, Nevada

September 12, 2013

 

 

 

 

**Seale and Beers, CPAs PCAOB & CPABRegistered Auditors**

**50 S. Jones Blvd Suite 202 Las Vegas,NV 89107 Phone: (888)727-8251 Fax: (888)782-2351**
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Mark RAINEY.

No. 2011-KK-0569.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 6, 2011.

*621PER CURIAM.1

Writ granted.

The trial court erred in suppressing the evidence for lack of probable cause to arrest defendant for possession of a firearm. The record shows that defendant’s arm movement from the driver to passenger side of the vehicle and the unusual location of the firearm under the driver’s right thigh provided probable cause for the defendant’s arrest.

Constructive possession occurs when a firearm is subject to the defendant’s dominion and control. *State v. Johnson,*2003-1228 (La.4/14/04) 870 So.2d 995, 998. Defendant’s abrupt arm motion witnessed by police as they approached the vehicle during the traffic stop and the location of the firearm were sufficient to cause the police to believe that more likely than not the defendant had dominion and control over the firearm to establish constructive possession. The fact that the firearm was ultimately found underneath the driver’s right thigh when police reached the side of the vehicle does not detract from a finding of probable cause because dominion and control constitute possession even if temporary or if shared. *Id.*

1

. Kimball, C.J., not participating in the decision.
<PAGE>

                                                                     Exhibit 3.8

                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                       OF
                              AMENDED AND RESTATED
                          CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                             McLEODUSA INCORPORATED

          McLeodUSA Incorporated, a corporation organized and existing under the
laws of the State of Delaware (the "Corporation"), hereby certifies as follows:

          FIRST:  Pursuant to Sections 141 and 242 of the General Corporation
Law of the State of Delaware (the "DGCL") and in accordance with the Certificate
of Incorporation and the By-laws of the Corporation, the Board of Directors of
the Corporation, at a meeting duly called and held on January 6, 2000, adopted
resolutions proposing and declaring advisable and in the best interests of the
Corporation the following amendment to the Certificate of Incorporation:

          Section 4.1 of the Certificate of Incorporation is hereby amended and
     restated as follows:

          "4.1.  Authorized Shares

          The total number of shares of stock that the Corporation shall be
     authorized to issue is 1,024,000,000 shares, divided into three classes as
     follows: (i) 1,000,000,000 shares of Class A common stock having a par
     value of $.01 per share ("Class A Common Stock"); (ii) 22,000,000 shares of
     Class B common stock having a par value of $.01 per share ("Class B Common
     Stock"); and (iii) 2,000,000 shares of serial preferred stock, having a par
     value of $.01 per share ("Preferred Stock")."

          SECOND:  The foregoing amendment to the Certificate of Incorporation
was approved at the Corporation's special meeting of stockholders held on March
30, 2000, by the holders of at least a majority of the outstanding stock
entitled to vote thereon and a majority of the outstanding stock of each class
entitled to vote thereon as a class.

          THIRD:  The foregoing amendment to the Certificate of Incorporation
was duly adopted and approved in accordance with the requirements of Sections
141 and 242 of the DGCL.
<PAGE>

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Certificate of
Amendment to be executed by its duly authorized officer, as of the 30th day of
March, 2000.


                                      McLEODUSA INCORPORATED


                                      By:  /s/ Stephen C. Gray
                                           -----------------------------
                                           Stephen C. Gray
                                           President and Chief Operating
                                           Officer



                                       2
#### Kenneth FLETCHER, Appellant, v. Larry NORRIS, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction, Appellee.

No. 99-3382.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 5, 2001.

Decided Jan. 22, 2001.

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, HANSEN, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Kenneth Fletcher appeals the district court’s1 dismissal with prejudice of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ submissions on appeal, we conclude that his second prosecution did not violate double jeopardy, collateral estoppel, or res judica-ta principles. We affirm for the reasons stated in the magistrate judge’s thorough and well-reasoned report, adopted in its entirety by the district court. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Stephen M. Reasoner, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Hemy L. Jones, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.