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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997             MAR-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996             APR-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996             SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                       9,933,264                       0
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,056,827                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                    44,021                       0
<INVENTORY>                                    850,721                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            42,748,279                       0
<PP&E>                                       4,008,025                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,257,165                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              51,511,027                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       30,063,743                       0
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                         8,766                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                  20,823,959                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                51,511,027                       0
<SALES>                                     58,241,940              27,130,426
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            58,241,940              27,130,426
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               59,650,503              30,217,610
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                23,657                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,068                  12,267
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0                       0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (852,794)             (2,842,629)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (852,794)             (2,842,629)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.11)                   (.78)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.11)                   (.78)
        

</TABLE>
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 on Form 10-QSB of Safari
Associates, Inc. ( the "Company") for the quarter ended September 30, 2004, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"report"), I, Stephen Steeneck, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 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 represents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.


                                                        /s/ Stephen Steeneck
                                                        Stephen Steeneck
                                                        Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT
32.1





HERITAGE
OAKS BANCORP




Quarterly
report on Form 10Q


for the
quarter ended September 30, 2010





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, 2010, 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
      12, 2010
            /s/ Lawrence P. WardLawrence
      P. Ward,Chief
      Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)(Principal
      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 Heritage Oaks Bancorp, and will be retained
by Heritage Oaks Bancorp and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.




Heritage
Oaks Bancorp
Exhibit 32.2

RF MONOLITHICS, INC.

CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF SARBANES  OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Harley E Barnes III, Chief Financial Officer of RF Monolithics, Inc. (the Company), DOES
HEREBY CERTIFY that:



| | 1. | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended November 30, 2010 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 and is not being filed
as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this instrument to
be executed this 14th day of January, 2011.



/s/ Harley E Barnes IIIName: Harley E Barnes IIITitle: Chief Financial Officer


*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 or its staff upon request.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. LEE BARNETT.

December 8, 1987.

Leave to appeal granted, and the matter is remanded to the Superior Court, Law Division, Union County, for consideration of the merits of defendant’s contention that his request for an attorney precluded any subsequent waiver of his constitutional right against self-incrimination — the manner in which any fur*519ther proceedings are to be conducted is left to the discretion of the trial court.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

JIMMY JEUDY, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D19-403 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ________________________________ ) Opinion filed September 18, 2020. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sarasota County; Debra Johnes Riva, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Cynthia J. Dodge, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT, ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, and SMITH, JJ., Concur.
#### Antonio Lee ALLS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D09-4109.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Jan. 15, 2010.

*157Antonio Lee Alls, pro se, Petitioner.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, and Trisha Meggs Pate, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

DENIED as moot.

HAWKES, C.J., WOLF and DAVIS, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEET OF MULTIMEDIA ACCESS CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES AS OF MARCH 31,
1998 (UNAUDITED) AND THE RELATED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE
THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 (UNAUDITED) AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1,181,426
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,741,437
<ALLOWANCES>                                   102,000
<INVENTORY>                                  1,627,067
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,868,969
<PP&E>                                       1,664,907
<DEPRECIATION>                                 631,946
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,963,870
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,247,523
<BONDS>                                      5,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           900
<OTHER-SE>                                   (284,553)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,963,870
<SALES>                                      1,767,968
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,834,968
<CGS>                                          900,802
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  900,802
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               875,038
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                36,699
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             161,394
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,791,268)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,791,268)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,791,268)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.21)
        

</TABLE>
585 A.2d 381

#### J.P. AND M.P. v. ROBERT B. NICHOLAS.

September 18, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
584 A.2d 206

#### OBAL LOPEZ v. NEW JERSEY AUTOMOBILE FULL INSURANCE UNDERWRITING ASSOCIATION.

May 1, 1990.

Petition for certification denied. (See 239 *N.J.Super.*13, 570 A.2d 994)
#### Anthony Ray CASEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 2D10-598.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 29, 2010.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Cynthia J. Dodge, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Ronald Napolitano, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

WHATLEY, Judge.

Anthony Ray Casey appeals an order revoking his probation and sentencing him to a previously suspended term of five years in prison. Casey was originally charged with and entered a plea to grand theft and was sentenced to five years in prison, suspended, and five years of probation. He thereafter admitted violating his probation and was given the suspended sentence. Casey argues, and the State correctly concedes, that his sentence must be reversed because the trial court mistakenly believed that it was required to impose the suspended portion of his sentence.

At the original sentencing hearing for grand theft, the trial court told Casey that if he violated the terms of his probation, “you’re going to get five years Florida State Prison because I’ve suspended it.... Because I’ve suspended it, so I won’t have any discretion. Unless the State agrees, I’ve pretty much bound my hands.” Thereafter, before accepting Casey’s admission to the violation of probation, the trial court stated as follows:

> Is it your intention to admit your violation of probation today with the understanding that this is an open plea; I can sentence you to any lawful sentence, up to five years in prison — I believe, actually, you have five years in prison suspended, so there’s not a lot of mystery about what’s going to happen here, I don’t think.

Here, as in *Nadzo v. State,*24 So.3d 690, 691-92 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009), the trial court was under the mistaken belief that it was mandatory to impose the previously suspended prison term. In *Nadzo,*24 So.3d at 692, this court noted that the trial court could have continued, modified, or revoked the appellant’s probation and that, after deciding to revoke the probation, the trial court could impose a sentence less than *783the original sentence. *See also Cowart v.*State, 860 So.2d 1041, 1042 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); *Lacey v. State,*831 So.2d 1267, 1270 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).

Because the trial court appears to have believed it was required to sentence Casey to five years in prison, we reverse and remand the case for reconsideration.

CASANUEVA, C.J., and BLACK, J„ Concur.
Exhibit 31.4

 

CERTIFICATIONS 

I, Richard Kassar, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Freshpet, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2018; 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 30, 2019

/s/ Richard Kassar        _

Richard Kassar

Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.2

RF MONOLITHICS, INC.

CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906

OF SARBANES  OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Harley E Barnes III, Chief Financial Officer of RF Monolithics, Inc. (the Company), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:



| | 1. | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended November 30, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 and is not being filed
as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this instrument to
be executed this 13th day of January, 2010.



/s/ Harley E Barnes IIIName: Harley E Barnes IIITitle: Chief Financial Officer


*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 or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 32


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the
undersigned officer of Spring Valley Acquisition Corporation
(the "Company"), hereby certify to my knowledge that:

The Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2014 of the Company fully complies, in all material respects,
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the
Report fairly represents, 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 or its staff upon request.


                             /s/ James Cassidy
                                 Chief Executive Officer
                                 Chief Financial Officer
Date: April 13, 2015
585 A.2d 366

#### SOMERS ASSOCIATES, INC. v. GLOUCESTER TOWNSHIP.

September 4, 1990.

Petition for certification denied. (See 241 *N.J.Super.*323, 575 A.2d 20)
#### The Danville Stove & Manufacturing Company v. Allen C. Adsit, Circuit Judge of Kent County.

*Justices’ courts*— Appeal—Notice *of application*— Acceptance *of service*— Retroactive *statute.*

1. Act No. 78, Laws of 1891, amending How. Stat. § 7005, by authorizing service upon the agent or attorney who appears for .a party who obtains a judgment in justice’s court, from which a special appeal is sought to be taken, of notice of all subsequent proceedings in the cause, is not retroactive.

*2.*Prior to the amendment of How. Stat. § 7005, by Act No. 73, Laws of 1891, service of notice of application for leave to appeal from justice’s court, made upon the opposite party without this State, conferred no jurisdiction upon the circuit judge to allow the appeal, nor was the requirement waived by an acceptance of service outside of the State.

*Mandamus.*

Submitted November 10, 1891.

Granted November 11, 1891.

Kelator applied for *mandamus*to compel respondent to set aside an order granting a special appeal. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

*Taggart & Denison,*for relator.

*James E. McBride,*for respondent.

Per Curiam.

In this matter a judgment was rendered in justice’s court, October -29, 1890, in favor of relator and against one Annie Tazelaar. May 11, 1891, under the statute as it then existed, the circuit judge, respondent here, granted the defendant an appeal. Upon application to this Court, a *mandamus*was issued to set aside the order granting such appeal, upon the ground that no proper service of notice of the application for appeal had *245-ever been served on relator.1 The service was made upon the company outside of the State of Michigan.

Act No. 73, Laws of 1891, went into effect October 2, 1891. October 6, 1891, an order to show cause was made by respondent, upon application, why the appeal of said Annie Tazelaar should not be granted. This order was served upon the attorney of relator in justice’s court. October 13, 1891, the appeal was granted.

The statute relating to appeals, as amended by Act No. 73, Laws of 1891, provides that, where the party obtaining judgment appears by attorney or agent, it will be sufficient to serve notice of subsequent proceedings in the cause upon such attorney or agent. We think this statute is not retroactive, and the writ must be granted commanding respondent to set aside his order granting the appeal.

1

The service was made at the home office of the plaintiff, in Pennsylvania, upon its president, who accepted the same in writing.
# The Attorney General ofTexas September 28, 1978 JOHN L.HILL Attorney General
Honorable Leonard Prewitt Executive Secretary Opinion No.Ii- 1249 Teacher Retirement System ofTexas 1001Trinity Street Austin, Texas 78701 Re: Whether local school districts are permitted to pay the required employee contribution to the Teacher Retirement System. Dear Mr. Prewitt: Youhave requested our opinion regarding whether alocal school district may pay the required employee contribution to the Teacher Retirement System. Youstate that a recent ruling indicates the intention ofthe Internal Revenue Service to exclude from gross income any portion of a teacher’s contribution to a state pension plan which is “picked up” by the school district. Section 3.57(b) ofthe Education Code requires that every employer shall deduct from the salary of each member [of the Teacher Retirement System] 6.65 percent of his compensation for each payroll period. In our opinion, this provision clearly means that the member is liable for payment ofhis own contribution. Other portions of section 3.57 support this view: (c) These deductions shall be made although they

reduce amember’s minimum compensations provided by law. Every member shall be deemed to consent to the deductions made and the payment of his compensation, less said deductions, shall constitute a complete release of all claims, except for benefits provided under this chapter for service rendered by him during the payment period.

. . . .

p. 4963

.Honorable Leonard Prewitt - Page 2 (H-1249)
(g) If deductions which should have been made from any member’s salary were not in fact made, the member must pay these deductions, plus a five percent per annum fee on the unpaid amount from the end of the school year such deductions were due until the date of payment, on terms prescribed bythe State Board ofTrustees.
. .. The Legislature has unequivocally expressed its intent that the member himself make the required contribution. Asaresult, we donot believe the statute can be construed, to permit an employer to assume that burden. Weexpress no opinion as to the validity or effect under the tax ruling ofaproposal bywhich a district would reimburse an employee for the deduction required bysection 3.57(b). SUMMARY Alocal school district may not pay the required employee contribution to the Teacher Retirement System. Verytruly yours,

/ Attorney General ofTexas APPROVED: w

/ h’ 

# d&d

C. ROBERT HEATH. Chairman Opinion Committee ’

p. 4964
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Leonard JOHNSON.

No. 2010-KK-0398.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 19, 2010.

In re Johnson, Leonard; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. D, No. 253-115; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2009-K-1689.

Denied.
584 A.2d 219

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. GEORGE SANDLAND.

May 15, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 16-2487

___________________________

Omar Enrique Erazo-Martinez

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner

v.

Jefferson B. Sessions, III, Attorney General of the United States

1

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent

____________

Petition for Review of an Order of the

 Board of Immigration Appeals

____________

 Submitted: May 5, 2017

Filed: May 9, 2017

[Unpublished]

____________

Before RILEY, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Honduran citizen Omar Enrique Erazo-Martinez petitions for review of an

order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from a decision of

Jefferson B. Sessions, III has been appointed to serve as Attorney General of 1

the United States and automatically is substituted as respondent pursuant to Federal

Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2).
an immigration judge denying his application for cancellation of removal under 8

U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). We conclude the arguments he presents to this court are

unavailing, and thus we deny the petition. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

-2-