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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           2,202
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,961
<ALLOWANCES>                                       603
<INVENTORY>                                      6,604
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                21,687
<PP&E>                                          28,040
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,071
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 138,794
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,757
<BONDS>                                         84,055
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            10
<OTHER-SE>                                      41,930
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   138,794
<SALES>                                         39,929
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                39,929
<CGS>                                           28,314
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   28,314
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,178
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   478
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,619
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    190
<INCOME-TAX>                                       121
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                121
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        69
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.07
        

</TABLE>
FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT AUGUST 12, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H]

I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 08- 11386 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 7 - 0 0 0 5 0 - CR- 4 - SPM - W CS U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s G U S D A S H E R , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe N or the rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( A u gu s t 12, 2008) B efo re C A RN E S , B A R K E T T an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: C h e t K a u f

m a n , ap p o in te d c o u n s e l f o rG u s D a s h e r , h a s f

ile d am o tio n to2

w i thd ra w on appeal supp ort ed by a bri ef prepare d p ursuantt o A nd er s v. C al i forni a, 386 U . S . 738, 87 S . C t . 1396, 18 L . E d. 2d 493 ( 1967) . O uri nde pe nde ntr e vi e w of the e nt i r e r e c or d r e ve a l s tha tc ouns e l ’ s a s s e s s m e ntof the r e l a t i ve m e r i tof

the appe a l i s c orr e c t . B e c a us e i nde pe nde nte xa m i na t i on of the e nt i r e r e c or d r e ve a l s no i ssu es o f arg u ab l e m eri t , co u n sel ’ s m o t i o n t o w i th d raw i s G R A N TED a nd D as her’ s c on vi ct i on s a nd se nt ence s a re A FFI R M ED .
No. 87-5990.

#### Ray *v.*United States; and May *v.*United States.

No. 87-6162.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Charles Edward BROWN, Appellant, v. FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION and JCA Ventures, Inc. Deal Tire Wheel, Appellees.

No. 1D10-5831.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Feb. 28, 2011.

Charles Edward Brown, pro se, Appellant.

A. Robert Whaley, General Counsel, and Louis A. Gutierrez, Assistant General Counsel, Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, for Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED. *Durando v. Palm Beach County,*719 So.2d 1258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).

The appellees’ Motion to Dismiss, served January 24, 2010, is denied.

LEWIS, CLARK, and ROWE, JJ., concur.
#### Michael Wayne GEORGE, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D10-3146.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 23, 2010.

Michael Wayne George, pro se, Petitioner.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is denied on the merits.

THOMAS, CLARK, and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.4


CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT UNDER SECTION 302 OF


THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Michael Nathenson, certify that:


|   |                                                                                                                                                           
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017 of Blue Buffalo Pet Products, Inc.; and

|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|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.

Date: April 23, 2018


/s/ Michael Nathenson Michael Nathenson Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, and Treasurer (Principal Financial and Principal Accounting Officer)
#### SUCCESSION OF Arthur Louis ROBINSON v. Suzanne D. HARLAN and Charles G. Harlan.

No. 2010-CC-2616.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 29, 2010.

In re Davis, Julie Robinson; Robinson, Braden P. et al.; Robinson, Terri M.;— *5Defendant(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. M, No. 545,320; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 CW 2171.

Stay denied. Writ denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           5,971
<SECURITIES>                                    19,425
<RECEIVABLES>                                   40,295
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                68,103
<PP&E>                                           7,047
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,142
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  73,660
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,235
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           157
<OTHER-SE>                                      61,989
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    73,660
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               120,561
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   79,287
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,517
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,148
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,369
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,369
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.40
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit
10.1


 


RESOLUTIONS
OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF FOMO CORP.


 


Pursuant
to the provisions of California Corporation law, as amended, and the Certificate of Incorporation and By-Laws of FOMO CORP., a California
corporation (the “Company”), the undersigned as of November 24, 2021 approves the conversion of CEO Vikram Grover’s
$60,000.00 accrued compensation into 60,000 Series B Preferred shares.


 


WHEREAS,
to manage its business, the undersigned approves the conversion of CEO Vikram Grover’s $60,000.00 accrued compensation into 60,000
Series B Preferred shares.


 


WHEREAS,
the Board of Directors believes it is in the best interests of the Company to approves the conversion of CEO Vikram Grover’s $60,000.00
accrued compensation into 60,000 Series B Preferred shares.


 


NOW
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT:


 


RESOLVED,
the Board of Directors approves the conversion of CEO Vikram Grover’s $60,000.00 accrued compensation into 60,000 Series B Preferred
shares.


 


RESOLVED,
that any of the Executive Officers of the Company are hereby authorized and directed for and on behalf of the Company to do and perform
all acts and things and execute and deliver all documents and take all such other steps as may be necessary or desirable to give full
effect to the consent resolutions set forth above.


 


		 
	Vikram
    Grover, CEO & Director
#### STATE ex rel. Tommie TUCKER v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-1345.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 3, 2011.

In re Tucker, Tommie; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 242,525; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 45,-473-KH.

Denied. Moot. The district court has acted.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-40641

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

FRANCISCO C. LOPEZ,

a/k/a Francisco Lopez-Casanova,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. L-93-CR-152-1

- - - - - - - - - -

February 21, 1997

Before SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Francisco Lopez, federal prisoner # 63537-079, filed a

motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to vacate his conviction. The

district court denied that motion and Lopez now seeks leave to

proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. To succeed, Lopez

must show that he is a pauper and that he will present a nonfrivolous issue on appeal. Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586

(5th Cir. 1982). 
No. 96-40641

-2-

Lopez argues that the district court lacked jurisdiction to

convict him because 21 U.S.C. § 841 is unconstitutional and

because he was not on federal property or territory at the time

he committed the crime. This court has determined that § 841 is

a valid exercise of Congress's commerce power and that a

conviction under this section does not require proof of specific

nexus with interstate commerce. United States v. Owens, 996 F.2d

59, 61 (5th Cir. 1993). Lopez has failed to present a

nonfrivolous issue on appeal

IFP DENIED. APPEAL DISMISSED.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SHARLA TIPTON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

ZIMMER, INC., a Business Entity; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-56609

D.C. No. 2:15-cv-04171-BRO-JC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Beverly Reid O’Connell, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted March 6, 2018

Pasadena, California

Before: GRABER, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiff-Appellant Sharla Tipton appeals from several district court orders

ruling that “Mike (Last Name Unknown)” was a fraudulently joined defendant and

entering judgment in favor of Defendants-Appellees Zimmer Inc., Zimmer Biomet

Holdings, Inc. and Zimmer Surgical, Inc. (collectively, “Zimmer”). We have

FILED

MAR 22 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm the district court. “We . . .

review issues of subject matter jurisdiction and denials of motions to remand

removed cases de novo.” Ritchey v. Upjohn Drug Co., 139 F.3d 1313, 1315 (9th

Cir. 1998).

1. Tipton argues that Zimmer waived any argument that “Mike” was a

fraudulently joined defendant by failing to raise that argument in its notice of

removal. A motion to remand that is based on a procedural defect in removal must

be made within 30 days after the filing of a notice of removal. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

Zimmer filed the notice of removal on June 3, 2015. Tipton filed her motion to

remand on May 18, 2016, well after the 30-day deadline.

2. The district court correctly determined that “Mike,” the only non-diverse

defendant, was fraudulently joined to defeat diversity jurisdiction. See Morris v.

Princess Cruises, Inc., 236 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Joinder of a nondiverse defendant is deemed fraudulent . . . if the plaintiff fails to state a cause of

action against a resident defendant, and the failure is obvious according to the

settled rules of the state.”) (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted).

Because a district court may ignore the citizenship of a fraudulently joined

defendant in determining whether diversity jurisdiction is present, see Hunter v.

2
Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1043 (9th Cir. 2009), the court did not err by

denying Tipton’s motion to remand the case to state court. 

3. Tipton also challenges the district court’s grant of summary judgment in

Zimmer’s favor and its denial of her motion for a new trial. Tipton’s motion was

premised on the argument that “Mike” was not fraudulently joined and that the

district court therefore lacked subject matter jurisdiction and could not enter

judgment in Zimmer’s favor. The additional information submitted by Tipton in

support of her motion for a new trial, which the district court considered, did not

establish that “Mike” was properly joined to her suit. The district court did not err

by denying Tipton’s motion. 

AFFIRMED. 

3
EXHIBIT
32.1





HERITAGE
OAKS BANCORP




Quarterly
report on Form 10Q


for the
quarter ended September 30, 2009





CERTIFICATION





Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





The
undersigned, who is the Chief Executive Officer of Heritage Oaks Bancorp (the
“Company”), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350, that to my
knowledge, (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10Q for the quarter ended September
30, 2009, as filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the “Quarterly Report”), to which this Certification is an Exhibit, fully
complies with the applicable requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the
Exchange Act; and (ii) the information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.





Dated:  November
      9, 2009
              /s/ Lawrence P. WardLawrence
      P. Ward,President
      and Chief Executive 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 Heritage Oaks Bancorp, and will be retained
by Heritage Oaks Bancorp and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Commission on Civil Rights

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and the regulations of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a meeting of the Utah Advisory Committee will convene at 5:30 p.m. and adjourn at 8 p.m. (MST) on Thursday, February 25, 2010 at the 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, UT 84111. The purpose of the meeting is for the committee to discuss recent Commission and regional activities, discuss current civil rights issues in the state and plan future activities. The Committee will also be briefed on education issues affecting minority students as it prepares to select a project topic.

                    Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office by March 25, 2010. The                           ( print page 5944)                        address is Rocky Mountain Regional Office, 1961 Stout Street, Suite 240, Denver, CO 80294. Persons wishing to e-mail their comments, or who desire additional information should contact Malee Craft, Regional Director, at 303-866-1040 or by e-mail to:                     *mcraft@usccr.gov.*

Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.

The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the Commission and FACA.

Dated in Washington, DC, February 2, 2010.

Peter Minarik,

Acting Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.

[FR Doc. 2010-2525 Filed 2-4-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 718 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the unlawful disposal 

of fetal remains, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 27, 2017 

Mr. TIBERI (for himself, Mr. WENSTRUP, Mr. ROE of Tennessee, Mr. JOYCE

of Ohio, Mr. GIBBS, Mr. LATTA, Mr. RENACCI, Mr. TURNER, Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio, Mr. STIVERS, and Mr. CHABOT) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the 

unlawful disposal of fetal remains, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protecting the Dignity 

5 of Unborn Children Act of 2017’’. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 718 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITING UNLAWFUL DISPOSAL OF FETAL RE2 MAINS. 

3 (a) PROHIBITING UNLAWFUL DISPOSAL OF FETAL

4 REMAINS.—Part I of title 18, United States Code, is 

5 amended by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘CHAPTER 125—UNLAWFUL DISPOSAL OF 

7 FETAL REMAINS 

‘‘2741. Unlawful disposal of fetal remains. 

8 ‘‘§ 2741. Unlawful disposal of fetal remains 

9 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Whoever recklessly disposes of 

10 or abandons fetal remains in a landfill or in any of the 

11 navigable waters of the United States shall be imprisoned 

12 not more than 3 years or fined under this title, or both. 

13 ‘‘(b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this sec14 tion shall be construed to authorize the prosecution of any 

15 woman for the disposal of the remains of her unborn child. 

16 ‘‘(c) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

17 ‘‘(1) FETAL REMAINS.—The term ‘fetal re18 mains’ means any part of a human fetus that is de19 ceased by reason of an abortion, but does not in20 clude any such part that has been cremated. 

21 ‘‘(2) LANDFILL.—The term ‘landfill’ means a 

22 sanitary landfill, as such term is defined in section 

23 1004(26) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act. 

24 ‘‘(3) NAVIGABLE WATERS.—The term ‘navi25 gable waters’ has the meaning given such term in 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 718 IH

1 section 502(7) of the Federal Water Pollution Con2 trol Act.’’. 

3 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of chapters 

4 for such part is amended by inserting, after the item per5 taining to chapter 123, the following: 

‘‘125. Unlawful disposal of fetal remains ................................................ 2741’’. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD 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



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Merix Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended November 26, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), I, Mark R. Hollinger, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|1. | The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |  |  |                        
|--------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|                      |  | 
|Dated January 5, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/ Mark R. Hollinger  
|                      |  |  |  | Mark R. Hollinger      
|                      |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer
585 A.2d 338

#### ISLE HEINEMEYER, ET AL. v. JOSEPH P. O’DONNELL.

July 10, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.