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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                             328
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  101,403
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               103,680
<PP&E>                                       7,115,383
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,579,624
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,642,140
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           23,885
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,579,624
<SALES>                                        310,899
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               313,610
<CGS>                                          104,321
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  259,916
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 53,694
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             53,694
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    53,694
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Hennion & Walsh, Inc. 487


Exhibit 4.3


 



Consent of Independent Registered Public
Accounting Firm


We have issued our report
dated November 23, 2021, with respect to the financial statement of SmartTrust 542 contained in Amendment No. 1 to the Registration Statement
on Form S-6 (File No. 333-258833) and related Prospectus. We consent to the use of the aforementioned report in the Registration Statement
and Prospectus, and to the use of our name as it appears under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm”.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


November 23, 2021
EXHIBIT
32.1





HERITAGE
OAKS BANCORP




Quarterly
report on Form 10Q


for the
quarter ended March 31, 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 March 31,
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:  May
      8, 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.
Exhibit 32.2



Certification of Chief Financial Officer



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of
CV Therapeutics, Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



(i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2004, (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



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



|                        |  |  |  |                                             
|----------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------------------------
|Dated: November 8, 2004 |  |  |  | /s/ DANIEL K. SPIEGELMAN                    
|                        |  |  |  | Daniel K. Spiegelman Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 31.3


CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT UNDER SECTION 302 OF


THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, William Bishop, Jr., certify that:


|   |                                                                                                                                                             
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A 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/ William Bishop, Jr. William Bishop, Jr.


Chief Executive Officer and President (Principal Executive Officer)
FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT MARCH 25, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 07- 1044 6 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C . Do ck et No . 0 6 -0 0 0 7 9 -C R- WS UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A,
Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us THOMAS EDWARD LONGMIRE, a.k .a. Tomm

y Lon gm ire , Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court f o r th e S o u t h e rn D i s t r i c to f

A l ab a ma

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (M ar ch 25, 200 8) Before CA RNE S, BA RKE TT and PRY OR, Circuit Judges PE R CU RIA M:2

D en nis J. K

niz le y , a ppoi nte d c ouns el f

or T hom as E dw ar d L ongm ir e in this dir ec t c ri m ina l a

ppe al , ha s m ove d to w ith dr awf ro m f urthe r re pr es en ta tio n of

the ap pe llant and f

ile d abr ie f pur suant t o A nde rs v. Ca lif or nia , 386 U
. S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L .E d.2d 493 (196 7). Our independent reviewof the entire
re co rd r ev ea ls tha t c ouns el ’ s a sse ssm en t of the r el at ive m er it of

the appe al is
co rr ec t. B ec au se ind ep en de nt e xam inatio n of the e nti re r ec or d r ev ea ls n o arg uable iss ue s of m er it, c ouns el ’ s m oti on t o w ith dr awis GRA NTE D , a n dLo n g m i re ’s convictio ns and sentences are AF FIRMED
.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-50132

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ENRIQUE GOMEZ-SALAZAR, also known as

Jessie (Jesus) Bonilla,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. DR-99-CR-227-1

--------------------

October 19, 2000

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Enrique Gomez-Salazar appeals his sentence imposed for

illegal reentry into the United States following this court’s

remand for resentencing. Gomez-Salazar argues that his prior

conviction for transporting aliens does not constitute an

aggravated felony within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(N)

and § 2L1.2 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. He

argues that the rule of lenity requires that § 1101(a)(43)(N) be

interpreted as not including transporting aliens within the
No. 00-50132 

-2-

definition of aggravated felony. Gomez-Salazar acknowledges that

his argument is foreclosed by this court’s decision in United

States v. Monjaras-Castaneda, 190 F.3d 326 (5th Cir. 1999), cert.

denied, 120 S. Ct. 1254 (2000), and states that he is raising the

issue to preserve it for possible Supreme Court review. 

Monjaras-Castaneda forecloses this argument.

 Both Gomez-Salazar and the government have filed motions for

leave to file supplemental briefs. The motions are granted. 

Appellant in his supplemental brief argues that the Supreme Court

in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 120 S. Ct. 2348 (2000) effectively

overruled Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224

(1998). He argues that if Apprendi undermines Almendarez-Torres,

his sentence, which was enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b)(2), is invalid, and he should be resentenced under 8

U.S.C. § 1326(a). Gomez-Salazar acknowledges that this court

does not have the authority to overrule Almendarez-Torres and

states that he is raising the issue solely to preserve it for

possible Supreme Court review. Almendarez-Torres forecloses this

argument. 

AFFIRMED; BOTH PARTIES’ MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO FILE

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFS GRANTED.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                           STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION
                            OF NET INCOME PER SHARE


                                        THREE MONTHS ENDED         NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                            DECEMBER 31,              DECEMBER 31,
                                         2000         1999         2000         1999
                                      ---------    ----------   ---------    ----------
<S>                               <C>           <C>          <C>          <C>
Net income (loss) as reported. . .   $ (486,000)   $1,274,000   $(173,000)   $3,525,000
                                     ==========    ==========   =========    ==========
BASIC:
    Weighted average number of
      common shares outstanding. .    5,077,823     4,816,458   5,074,009     4,808,951
                                      =========     =========   =========     =========

  Basic net income (loss) per
      share. . . . . . . . . . . .       $(0.10)       $ 0.26      $(0.03)       $ 0.73
                                      =========     =========   =========     =========


DILUTED:
  Common and common equivalent shares
  outstanding:
    Weighted average number of
      common shares outstanding. .    5,077,823     4,816,458   5,074,009     4,808,951
    Common stock equivalents from
      options computed on the
      treasury-stock method using
      the average fair market
      value of common stock
      outstanding during the
      period . . . . . . . . . . .       92,444       360,784     151,034       301,484
                                      ---------     ---------   ---------     ---------
    Shares used in the
      computation. . . . . . . . .    5,170,267     5,177,242   5,225,043     5,110,435
                                      =========     =========   =========     =========

  Diluted net income (loss) per
      share. . . . . . . . . . . .       $(0.09)       $ 0.25      $(0.03)       $ 0.69
                                      =========     =========   =========     =========

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO


RULE
13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b)


OF
THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





I, Kelly
E. Lang, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the quarterly report
of Merix Corporation on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended November 28,
2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such quarterly
report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of Merix Corporation.








By: /s/ KELLY E.
LANG


Kelly E.
Lang


Executive
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


(Principal
Financial Officer)




January
4, 2010
#### Harold Robert RUSSELL, Appellant, v. Holly A. McQUEEN, Appellee.

No. 5D09-1843.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

June 3, 2011.

Neal L. Betancourt, of Rotchford & Be-tancourt, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellant.

Raymond I. Booth III, Orange Park, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Harold Robert Russell [“Father”] appeals the trial court’s final judgment of paternity. Father contends that the trial court made several errors in determining child support. We agree that five specific errors were made, but in all other respects, we affirm the judgment. First, it was error to fail to include the cost to Father of the health insurance that covered his child in calculating child support. Second, as Holly A. McQueen [“Mother”] concedes on appeal, the court used an incorrect figure to calculate the cost of insurance. Third, the trial court’s calculation contains a double charge for unreimbursed medical expenses. It was error to use the 2007 tax return of Father, instead of the 2006 return, to calculate retroactive child support from June 1 through December 2006. Finally, it appears that the trial court erred in attributing the $89,915, shown on Father’s tax return, filed jointly with his wife, to Father as income to him. According to the tax return and the testimony, this was his wife’s salary as CEO of Russell’s Telecom. The trial court made no finding, and our review of the record discloses no evidence that this income was Father’s. To the extent of these errors, the judgment must be reversed and remanded for reconsideration and recalculation of child support.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.

GRIFFIN, ORFINGER and LAWSON, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 24-0007

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

TRAVIS CLINTON PLANTIKO,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including October 25, 2024, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 19 2024

09/19/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0007
#### STATE ex rel. Michael BAPTISTE v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-0708.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 1, 2011.

In re Baptiste, Michael; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. D, No. 2010-K-0159; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-K-0159.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; *State ex rel Glover v. State,*93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9

<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
     QUARTERLY  REPORT  ON FORM  10-QSB  AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY  BY
     REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL INFORMATION.
</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000

<S>                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                  JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          5,293
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                              0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                    0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                    0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     6,745
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                            808
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            7,546
<LOANS>                                       169,106
<ALLOWANCE>                                       822
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                186,308
<DEPOSITS>                                    125,324
<SHORT-TERM>                                   19,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               935
<LONG-TERM>                                    19,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                          215
<OTHER-SE>                                     21,834
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                186,308
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 9,123
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 632
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                9,755
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              3,666
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              5,141
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           4,614
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      90
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 2,576
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 2,737
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      1,674
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                    1,674
<EPS-BASIC>                                       .81
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .78
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   3.60
<LOANS-NON>                                     1,705
<LOANS-PAST>                                        0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                     0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  804
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      79
<RECOVERIES>                                        7
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 822
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                              822
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                             0



</TABLE>
#### W. A. Stoker v. J. S. Wilson.

(No. 3585.)

Appeal from Hill County.

*(Transferred from Austin.J*

A. P. McKinnon, counsel for appellant.

B, D. Tarlton, counsel for appellee.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 10. *Damages; measure of against lessee for failure to perform rent contract; case stated.*Stoker rented fifty acres of land from Wilson for the year 1883, which land he agreed to cultivate in corn, and to pay Wilson one-third of the crop produced. This contract was entered into about February 25, 1883. About ten da'ys thereafter Stoker notified Wilson that he could not comply with the contract, and would not cultivate the land. Wilson made no effort, after receiving this notice, to cultivate or rent out the land, although there was still ample time within which to seasonably plant the same in corn, cotton or millet. Wilson permitted the land to lie idle during the year, and brought this suit to recover of Stoker the reasonable rent of said land, which he alleged was $199.80 for the year. He recovered judgment for said amount and costs. *Held:*The damages recoverable in a case like this are such as are recoverable in other cases of breach of contract, and are governed by the same rules. [Field on Dam. § 523.] In this case the measure of damage is the fair market rental value of the land for the year 1883, provided Wilson could not, by the use of ordinary effort and care, have realized some revenue from the land by cultivating or renting it. If by ordinary effort and care, and at a moderate expense, he could have cultivated the land, or could have rented it, it was his duty to do so, and failing to do so he will not be allowed to recover except for such loss as he could hot, by the use of reasonable effort and care, and at a moderate expense, have prevented. [W. & W. Con. Rep. *30§ 1125; 2 W. Con. Rep. §§ 288, 813; Meld on Dam. § 21.] It is clear from the evidence that Wilson, by the use of such effort and care, could have rented the land at some price, after he was notified by Stoker that he would not cultivate it. It was not too late in the season for the land to be planted. He certainly could have realized some revenue from it, and, to the extent that he could have prevented loss by the use of ordinary effort, it would be inequitable and contrary to the just rule of law to allow him to recover.

October 31, 1885.

Reversed and remanded.
#### Keith ROBINSON v. TEXTRON MARINE AND LAND SYSTEMS.

No. 2010-C-2378.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 7, 2011.

In re Robinson, Keith; —Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Office of Workers’ Compensation District “Eight”, No. 07-5750; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-CA-0333.

Denied.