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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Balance Sheet at September 30, 1998 (unaudited) and Statements of Income for
the three months ended September 30, 1998 (unaudited) and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                      10,719,000
<SECURITIES>                                 1,398,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,294,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   252,000
<INVENTORY>                                    883,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            16,343,000
<PP&E>                                       3,781,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              (1,872,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              20,624,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,679,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     7,850,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,910,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                20,624,000
<SALES>                                      7,361,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,361,000
<CGS>                                        4,546,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,546,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,391,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,684,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   623,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,061,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,061,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .31

        

</TABLE>
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1736 

To amend the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 

1992 to provide for conjunctive use of surface and groundwater in 

Juab County, Utah. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 28, 2007 

Mr. CANNON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 to provide for conjunctive use 

of surface and groundwater in Juab County, Utah. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CONJUNCTIVE USE OF SURFACE AND GROUND4 WATER IN JUAB COUNTY, UTAH. 

5 Section 202(a)(2) of the Reclamation Projects Au6 thorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 (Public Law 102– 

7 575) is amended by inserting ‘‘Juab,’’ after ‘‘Davis,’’. 

Æ 

mmaher on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       3,790,568
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   74,784
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    418,834
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,558,004
<PP&E>                                         415,713
<DEPRECIATION>                                 285,415
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,526,698
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          818,907
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       130,325
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,297,275
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,526,698
<SALES>                                         48,469
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               271,834
<CGS>                                          115,246
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  992,004
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                55,495
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              57,121
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (830,161)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (830,161)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (830,161)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.07)
        

</TABLE>
THE STATE OF TEXAS 

### M A N D A T E

TO THE 399TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas on September 16, 2015, the cause upon appeal to

revise or reverse your judgment between

Abel Oyervides, Appellant(s)

V.

The State of Texas, Appellee(s)

No. 04

- 15

- 00467

- CR and Tr. Ct. No. 2012CR4803

was determined, and therein our Court of Appeals made its order in these words:



## In accordance with the court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Fourth

District of Texas, in this behalf and in all things have the order duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

Witness the Hon. Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas,

with the seal of the Court affixed and the City of San Antonio on November 16, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
#### Charles E. LOUIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, et al., Appellees.

No. 4D10-3190.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 16, 2011.

Charles E. Louis, Plantation, pro se.

Louis A. Gutierrez, Deputy General Counsel, Tallahassee, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

*Affirmed. See Suarez v. Unemployment Appeals Commission,*871 So.2d 1039 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).

GROSS, C.J., MAY and GERBER, JJ., concur.
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-20,263-17

EX P ARTE WILL IAM BOYD P IERCE, App licant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. F -2003-0377- C-WHC 7 IN THE 211TH DIS TRICT COURT

F ROM DENTON COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R Applicant was convicted of sexual assault and sentenc ed to six ty y ear s’ imprisonment. The Second C o u rt of Appea ls aff irmed his conviction. Pierce v. State , No. 02-03-00517- CR (Tex. App.—For

t Worth Aug

. 12, 2004) (not desig nated for publication). Applicant filed this application for a writ of h ab ea s corpus in the county of conviction, and the district cler k forwa rded it to this Court. See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07. We have previously dismiss ed five subsequent applications in this caus e. S ee T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07, § 4. I t is obvious from the rec ord that Applicant continues to raise g rounds that wer e previously reje cted on the merits or that should have been raised in previous applications.2

We hold that Applicant has abused the writ and filed a friv o l o u s lawsuit. See Ex parte Jones , 97 S.W .3d 586 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); T E X . G O V ’ T C O D E § 498.0045(a- 1). Should Applicant file future habea s applications i n this cause , we wi l l n o t consider the merits of hi s applications unl ess he shows that the fac tual or leg al basis of his g rounds was unavailable in a previou s l y filed application. This applica tion is di smissed. Copies of this order shall be sent to the Texas Depa rtment of Criminal J ustice–Corre ctional I nstitut ions Division and the Boa rd of Par dons and Paroles.

Filed: J une 15, 2022 Do not publish
**Exhibit 32**

 

**The following certification isfurnished pursuant to the requirements of the Securities and ExchangeCommission and shall not be deemed “filed” for the purposes of Section 18 ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to the liability ofthat section.  Such certifications shallnot be deemed incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securitiesact of 1933 or the Securities Exchange act of 1934, except to the extent thatsuch certification is specifically incorporated by reference by the registrant.**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANTTO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Metro One Telecommunications, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we,Timothy A. Timmins, Chief Executive Officer and Dale N. Wahl, Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 

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

 

 
|  Date: August 14, 2003 | /s/  Timothy A. Timmins |                                                          |
|-----------------------------|------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|
|                        |                         | Timothy A.  TimminsPresident and Chief  Executive Officer     |   |
|                        |                         |                                                          |   |
|                        |                         |                                                          |   |
|                        |                         | /s/  Dale N. Wahl                                        |   |
|                        |                         | Dale N. Wahl  Senior Vice President,  Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

1

----
#### Donald ALLEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D12-3021.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 19, 2012.

Donald Allen, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Donna A. Gerace, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant filed a rule 3.850 motion arguing that his conviction for simple possession of cocaine was incorrectly listed on the judgment as a second-degree felony when it is a third-degree felony. The appellant is correct, and in response to this Court’s order issued pursuant to *Toler v. State, 493*So.2d 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), the state concedes error. *See*§ 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes (1997); *Grandison v. State,*691 So.2d 591 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Consequently, the lower court is directed to treat the motion as having been filed under rule 3.800(a), and *1275to correct the judgment to reflect that the appellant’s conviction for simple possession constitutes a third-degree felony rather than a second-degree felony. *See id.*

REVERSED AND REMANDED with directions.

DAVIS, VAN NORTWICK, and ROWE, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 22 (Wednesday, February 3, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 5629]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-2465]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FOREIGN CLAIMS SETTLEMENT COMMISSION

[F.C.S.C. Meeting Notice No. 1-10]


Sunshine Act Meeting

    The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, pursuant to its 
regulations (45 CFR part 504) and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 
U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice in regard to the scheduling of 
meetings for the transaction of Commission business and other matters 
specified, as follows:

DATE AND TIME: Thursday, February 18, 2010, at 10:30 a.m.

SUBJECT MATTER:  Issuance of Proposed Decisions in claims against 
Albania and Libya.

STATUS: Open.
    All meetings are held at the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, 
600 E Street, NW., Washington, DC. Requests for information, or advance 
notices of intention to observe an open meeting, may be directed to: 
Administrative Officer, Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, 600 E 
Street, NW., Room 6002, Washington, DC 20579. Telephone: (202) 616-
6975.

Mauricio J. Tamargo,
Chairman.
[FR Doc. 2010-2465 Filed 2-1-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4401-BA-P
No. 87-1288.

#### Crespo *v.*United States.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1

                       U.S. Restaurant Properties, Inc.
  Ratios of Earnings to Combined Fixed Charges and Preferred Stock Dividends
                                (in thousands)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                       Years ended December 31,
                                                                       ------------------------
                                                                2000                          1999
                                                             ----------                    ----------

<S>                                                          <C>                           <C>
Net Income                                                         (45)                            790

Fixed Charges:
   Interest Expense                                              30,706                         29,410
   Capitalized Interest                                             739                          1,346
   Preferred Dividend Requirements                                7,102                          7,102
                                                             ----------                     ----------
Total Fixed Charges and Preferred Stock
    Dividends                                                    38,547                         37,858

Less Preferred Stock Dividend Requirements                        7,102                          7,102

Earnings                                                        $31,400                        $31,546
                                                             ==========                     ==========

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                                1.00x                          1.03x
Ratio of Earnings to Combined
    Fixed Charges and Preferred
     Stock Dividends                                              0.81x                          0.83x
</TABLE>

During the years ended December 31, 2000 and 1999 the Company recorded non-cash
credits of $3,713 and $239, respectively, relating to the contingent OP units
accrued according to the 1997 termination of management contract.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,
                              AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of MITY Enterprises, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Paul R. Killpack, Chief Financial 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.


Date: August 1, 2006                    /s/ Paul R. Killpack
                                        -----------------------------------
                                        Paul R. Killpack
                                        Chief Financial Officer
#### STATE ex rel. Marvin Wayne BROOKS v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2011-KH-0358.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 16, 2011.

In re Brooks, Marvin Wayne; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. 5, No. 254411; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,-317-KH.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3; *State ex rel. Melinie v. State,*93-1380 (La.1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Freddie J. BANKS.

No. 2009-K-1609.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 16, 2011.

In re Banks, Freddie J.; — Defendant; Applying for Reconsideration of this Court’s action dated March 12, 2011; Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 10-06-0166, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2009 KA 0052.

Reconsideration denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM ZARING
NATIONAL CORPORATION CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1997
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           4,160
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      839
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    108,421
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                           9,526
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 132,143
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                         64,066
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        25,146
<OTHER-SE>                                      25,584
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   132,143
<SALES>                                        223,957
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               223,957
<CGS>                                          190,943
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  190,943
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                29,645
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,369
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,317
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,052
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,052
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael PERRY, a/k/a Get Lucky 99, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-4362.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 20, 2000.

Decided Jan. 11, 2001.

Michael Perry, pro se. Lynne Ann Bat-taglia, United States Attorney, Bonnie S. Greenberg, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, MD, for appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Michael Perry pled guilty to one count of transmitting child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2252A(a)(l) (West 2000), and one count of interstate travel with intent to engage in a sexual act with a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2423(b) (West 2000). He was sentenced to concurrent terms of 63 months’ imprisonment and 3 years’ supervised release. Both statutes carry a maximum term of 15 years’ imprisonment. *See*18 U.S.C.A. §§ 2252A(b), 2423(b). On appeal, Perry contends that his intention to produce a visual depiction of the proposed sexual activity was an element of the offenses that needed to be in the indictment and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. He further contends that the district court clearly erred by finding that he had the intention to produce a visual depiction of the proposed sexual activity. Perry also contends that the district court erred by not departing downward for diminished capacity pursuant to *U.S. Sentencing Guide*
      *194
      *lines Manual*§ 5K2.13 (1998). We affirm the convictions and sentences.

The district court’s finding at sentencing that Perry intended to produce a visual depiction of the proposed sexual activity did not increase Perry’s maximum statutory sentence for either conviction. Thus, the court did not err by making this finding by a preponderance of the evidence at sentencing. *See, e.g., Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000) (any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum, other than the fact of prior conviction, must be submitted to the jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt).

The district court’s factual findings at sentencing are reviewed for clear error. *United States v. Jones,*31 F.3d 1304, 1315 (4th Cir.1994). This Court is reluctant to overturn the district court’s factual findings. *United States v. D’Anjou,*16 F.3d 604, 614 (4th Cir.1994). We find that the court’s finding that Perry intended to produce a visual depiction of the sexual activity was not clearly erroneous.

Because the district court knew that it had the authority to depart downward from the sentencing guidelines for diminished capacity and found that a departure was not warranted, we cannot review the claim. *United States v. Bayerle,*898 F.2d 28, 30-31 (4th Cir.1990).

Accordingly, we affirm the convictions and sentences. 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.

*AFFIRMED.*