alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
   (A)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and(B)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for
the periods covered by the Report.
   May 15, 2006
    
    
    
    /s/ George C. PlattDate
    
    
    
    George C. PlattChief Executive Officer




---



##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
   (A)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and(B)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for
the periods covered by the Report.
   May 15, 2006
    
    
    
    /s/ Laurie L. LathamDate
    
    
    
    Laurie L. LathamChief Financial Officer
585 A.2d 406

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. WILLIAM F. KELLY.

October 30, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
A92A0484.

#### BURGESS et al. v. MEINKEN.

(431 SE2d 704)

Decided April 21, 1993.

*Robert E. Wilson, District Attorney, Barbara B. Conroy, Assistant District Attorney,*for appellants.

*Glenn Zell, Rodney S. Zell,*for appellee.

Judge John W. Sognier.

After appellee Meinken was acquitted of a felony charge by operation of law, the superior court ordered the DeKalb County Police Department to expunge his arrest record, ostensibly pursuant to OCGA § 35-3-37. In *Burgess v. Meinken,*204 Ga. App. 600 (420 SE2d 329) (1992), this court reversed the judgment of the trial court. However, on certiorari, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of this court. Accordingly, the prior judgment of this court is vacated and the judgment of the Supreme Court is made the judgment of this court. The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the case is remanded for an application of the balancing test posited by the Supreme Court in *Meinken v. Burgess,*262 Ga. 863 (426 SE2d 876) (1993).

*Judgment reversed.*

*Pope, C. J., and Johnson,- J., concur.*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Gerald MCELROY, Appellant.

No. 00-2794.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 9, 2001.

Decided Jan. 19, 2001.

Before WOLLMAN, Chief Judge, HANSEN, Circuit Judge, and JONES,1 District Judge.

1

. The Honorable John B. Jones, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.

Gerald McElroy pled guilty in district court2 to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). Prior to sentencing, the district court determined, pursuant to our decision in *United States v. Hascall,*76 F.3d 902 (8th Cir.1996), that McElroy’s previous conviction for burglary of a commercial building constituted a crime of violence for the purposes of U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1. Accordingly, the district court increased McElroy’s base offense level from 20 to 24 and sentenced McElroy to an 87 month term of imprisonment.

*611McElroy urges us to reverse the district court, overrule *Hascall,*and hold that his burglary conviction was not a crime of violence. As McElroy recognizes, however, we are bound by Hascall, because “one panel is not at liberty to overrule a decision of another panel.” *United States v. Prior,*107 F.3d 654, 660 (8th Cir.1997).

Accordingly, the sentence is affirmed.

A true copy.

2

. The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
584 A.2d 209

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ARTHUR MACK DREHER.

May 7, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
584 A.2d 231

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. FRANK GALLO.

May 30, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                NOV-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                     MAY-31-1999
<CASH>                                             1,696,000
<SECURITIES>                                       9,516,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                      2,190,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         159,000
<INVENTORY>                                          330,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  14,340,000
<PP&E>                                             1,636,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       931,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    19,474,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              1,999,000
<BONDS>                                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<COMMON>                                              47,000
<OTHER-SE>                                        17,254,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      19,474,000
<SALES>                                            1,850,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   4,775,000
<CGS>                                              1,409,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      3,244,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                           0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                         0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    1,531,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         612,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  919,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                         919,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                              .19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            .19



</TABLE>
585 A.2d 346

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. SHERLON COLCLOUGH.

July 10, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT APRIL 30, 2000 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
EARNINGS, STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY AND CASH FLOWS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED
APRIL 30, 2000, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-2000
<CASH>                                          87,084
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   79,187
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,867
<INVENTORY>                                    201,904
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               372,002
<PP&E>                                         356,370
<DEPRECIATION>                                  84,015
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 761,904
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          170,645
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           987
<OTHER-SE>                                     389,182
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   761,904
<SALES>                                        274,880
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               274,880
<CGS>                                          111,560
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  111,560
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               125,911
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 (124)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,153
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 33,108
<INCOME-TAX>                                    12,439
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             21,021
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    21,021
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.44


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 21

                LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF CRESCENT OPERATING, INC.

<Table>
<S>                                                                      <C>
Name of Subsidiary                                                       State of Incorporation or Organization

COI Hotel Group, Inc.                                                    Texas

WOCOI Investment Company                                                 Texas

RoseStar Management LLC                                                  Texas

Desert Mountain Development Corporation                                  Delaware

Woodlands Land Company, Inc.                                             Texas

RSCR Arizona Corp.                                                       Delaware

RSSW Corp.                                                               Delaware

Crescent Machinery Company (formerly, Moody-Day, Inc.)                   Texas

COPI Colorado, LP                                                        Delaware

CRL Investments, Inc.                                                    Texas

Crescent Resort Development, Inc. (formerly Crescent Development
Management Corp.)                                                        Delaware

Desert Mountain Properties, LP                                           Delaware

E.L. Lester & Company, Inc.                                              Texas

COPI Cold Storage, LLC                                                   Delaware
</Table>
Exhibit 10.7


 


 Certain information in this document indicated with “Redacted”
or “***” has been omitted from this exhibit because it is both (i) not material and (ii) would be competitively harmful if
publicly disclosed.
585 A.2d 344

#### NOEL McMENAMY v. SERGHIO SERGHIDES AND COSMOPOLITAN POOLS, INC., ET AL.

July 10, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
EXHIBIT 11


                            IPI, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY
              STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                    (In Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                             Three Months Ended
                                                                                February 28,
                                                                           ----------------------
                                                                             1998          1997
                                                                           ----------------------
<S>                                                                        <C>           <C>     
Net Income                                                                 $    388      $    314
                                                                           ========      ========

Weighted average number of issued shares outstanding                          4,734         4,734
                                                                           ========      ========
                                                                              4,734         4,734
Shares used in computation of basic earnings per common stock

Dilutive effect of outstanding stock options and stock warrants after
    application of treasury stock method                                          8             0
                                                                           --------      --------

Common and common equivalent shares outstanding-diluted                       4,742         4,734
                                                                           ========      ========

Basic earnings per common share                                            $    .08      $    .07
                                                                           ========      ========

Diluted earnings per common share                                          $    .08      $    .07
                                                                           ========      ========
</TABLE>
585 A.2d 323

#### IN THE MATTER OF WILLIAM H. CAMPBELL, III, AN ATTORNEY-AT-LAW.

February 11, 1991.

CONSENT ORDER

THIS MATTER, having been opened to the Court by DAVID E. JOHNSON, JR., Director, Office of Attorney Ethics, and with the consent of the Respondent, William H. Campbell, III, of Madison, New Jersey and it appearing that the Office of Attorney Ethics and Respondent having agreed to Respondent being temporarily suspended from the practice of law, together with the additional relief provided in this Order, pending final disposition of all ethics grievances before the District X Ethics Committee,

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. William H. Campbell, III of Madison, New Jersey, admitted to practice in this State in 1954, is temporarily suspended from the practice of law, effective immediately, pending final determination of all grievances, and until further Order of the Court.

*2922. The Office of Attorney Ethics takes such protective action, pursuant to *R.l:20~ll (c),*as may be appropriate to gain possession and control of the legal files, records and practice of William H. Campbell, III wherever situate.

3. William H. Campbell, III is hereby restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of suspension.

4. William H. Campbell, III shall comply with all the Administrative Guidelines of the Office of Attorney Ethics governing suspended, disbarred or resigned attorneys.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          43,248
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   40,445
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (554)
<INVENTORY>                                     48,652
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               135,130
<PP&E>                                          38,634
<DEPRECIATION>                                  13,774
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 171,477
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           39,225
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           219
<OTHER-SE>                                     119,542
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   171,477
<SALES>                                        175,594
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               184,969
<CGS>                                          101,420
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  101,420
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                61,255
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (1,347)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 23,641
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,456
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             14,185
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,185
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .69
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .65


</TABLE>
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E N IN T H C IR C U IT J OS E L UI S C E J A- GA R C I A, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 07- 73317 A ge nc yN o. A 076- 690- 128 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d J anuary11, 2010 ** B e f o r e : B E E Z E R , T R O T T , an dB Y B E E , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . J os e L ui s C e

j a - G ar c i a , ana t i ve and c i t i z e n of M e xi c o, pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) orders di sm i ss i ng hi s app ea l fr om an i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s ( “ I J ” ) r e m ova l or de r . O urj ur i s di c t i on i s gove rne d by 8 U. S . C . § 1 2 5 2 . We d e n yi n p artan dd i s m i s s i n p artth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. 

# FI LED JAN 19 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

W ith r e s p e c t to a d

ju s tm e n t o f

s ta tu s , C e

ja - G ar c iap o in ts to n o e v id e n c e in th e reco rd , an dw e fi n dn o n e, th ath e req u est eda fu rth er co n t i n u an ce o f th e A u g u st 11 , 20 03 , hear i ng . W e there fore re j ec tC ej a- G ar ci a’ s c on t ent i on thatthe IJabused hi s di sc re t i on i n d enyi ng a c on t i nu ance . W i th res pectt o cancel l at i on of re m ov al , w e l ac k j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew C ej aG ar c i a ’ s due pr oc e s s c l a i m tha tthe B I A di s r e gar de d c e rt a i n e vi de nc e i n a s s e s s i ng h ar d s h ip b e c au s e th e c la im is n o t c o lo r ab le . See M art i nez-R osas v. G on zales , 424 F . 3 d9 2 6 , 9 3 0 (9 th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) (“ [T ] rad i t i o n alab u se o f d i scret i o n ch al l en g es recast a s a l l e g e ddu e p r o c e s s v i o l a t i o n s d o n o tc o n s t i tu t e c o l o r ab l e c o n s t i tu t i o n a l c l a i ms th a t w o u ldin v o k e o u rju r is d ic tio n .” ) . P E T IT IO N F O R R E V IE W D E N IE D i n p art, D IS M IS S E D i n p art.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**


**CERTIFICATE
      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 Annual Report of Safari Associates, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10QSB for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      & Exchange Commission (the “Report”), each of the undersigned, in the
      capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that:





The
      Report fully complies 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 presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








Dated:  May
      22,
      2006   By:  /s/
      Zirk Engelbrecht


Zirk
      Engelbrecht


Chief
      Executive Officer & Chief Financial Officer
Order entered October 11, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 13
- 00113
- CV
RICHARD A. MYERS AND THOMAS J. WOUTERS, Appellant s V. BANK MIDWEST, N.A., Appellee On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District Court Dallas C ounty, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 11
- 02904 

### O RDER The Court has received a letter from the court reporter stating that there is no record of the October 29, 2012 hearing. The Court accordingly ORDERS appellants to file their brief within thirty days of the date of this order.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1724 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1724

                    For the relief of Maria Manzano.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 27, 2007

Mr. Walsh of New York introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                    For the relief of Maria Manzano.

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

SECTION 1. COMPENSATION OF MARIA MANZANO.

    (a) Payment.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay, out of funds 
not otherwise appropriated, the sum of $20,228.25 to Maria Manzano of 
Syracuse, New York, in full settlement of all claims of Maria Manzano 
against the United States arising out of the improper disclosure of the 
records of the grievance proceedings brought in 1971 by an employee of 
the Laboratory Division of the Department of State asserting a 
complaint against Maria Manzano, a supervisor in such Division.
    (b) No Inference of Liability.--Nothing in this Act shall be 
construed as an inference of liability on the part of the United 
States.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON ATTORNEYS' AND AGENTS' FEES.

    (a) In General.--It shall be unlawful for an amount exceeding 10 
percent of the amount paid pursuant to section 1 to be paid to, or 
received by, any agent or attorney for any service rendered in 
connection with the payment under this Act.
    (b) Enforcement.--Any person who violates subsection (a) shall be 
guilty of an infraction and shall be fined under title 18, United 
States Code.
                                 <all>
```
585 A.2d 366

#### JAMES K. DALY v. HIGH BRIDGE TEACHERS’ ASSOCIATION. THOMAS GAY v. PASCACK VALLEY REGIONAL EDUCATION ASSOC. ROBERT B. MELLERT v. BROOKDALE COMMUNITY COLLEGE FACULTY ASSOC.

September 4, 1990.

Petition for certification denied. (See 242 *N.J.Super.*12, 575 A.2d 1373)
SARAH LOUCKS 804 Pecan Street

DISTRICT CLERK PO Box 770

PHONE (512) 332

- 7244 Bastrop, TX 78602

FAX (512) 332

- 7249

Bastrop County District Clerk

June 8, 2015

Re : Court of Appeals Number: 03

- 15

- 00253

- CV; 03

- 15

- 00254

- CV; 03

- 15

- 00255

- CV

Trial Court Case Number: 11,883; 11,884; 11,930

Style: William H. Mikulin, Trustee of Combined Financial Holdings Trust

v. The Yegua Trust, et al

To: Court of Appeals

T he above referenced case s appeal were due June 8, 2015.

I unsuccessfully tried 2 or 3 times to contact Mr. William H. Mikulin to speak with him

about the appeal fee due our office for the 3 case s.

I contacted Chris K n owles in the Court of Appelas on June 8 th , 2015 to advise him of the

no contact and no payment for the appeal fee on all of the three cases

. Mr Knowles

advised me to send a status letter regarding this matt er.

After the Notice of Appeal was filed, the court costs due for the 3 cases were paid in full

and I also wanted to speak with Mr. Mikulin rega rding this event. Mr. Mikulin is the only

contact I have for these three appeals.

Please let this letter serve as the status update on these appeals.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter

.

Mary Lynn Harmon

. Chief Deputy Clerk

Bastrop County District Clerk Office

804 Pecan Street

Bastrop, TX 78602

(512) 332

- 7246

M ary. harmon@co.bastrop.tx.us