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


<ARTICLE>                          5
<MULTIPLIER>                             1
<CURRENCY>                         U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                     JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                       JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                              1
<CASH>                                  95,973
<SECURITIES>                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                          279,477
<ALLOWANCES>                           (14,766)
<INVENTORY>                             40,671
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       481,018
<PP&E>                               1,460,675
<DEPRECIATION>                        (715,444)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       1,826,645
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                1,112,763
<BONDS>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0
<PREFERRED>                                  0
<COMMON>                                29,438
<OTHER-SE>                             659,468
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         1,826,645
<SALES>                                916,101
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       916,101
<CGS>                                  489,164
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          489,164
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     1,332,462
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     (10,976)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       (933,374)
<INCOME-TAX>                               400
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   (933,774)
<DISCONTINUED>                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0
<CHANGES>                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                          (933,774)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                             (.32)
<EPS-DILUTED>                             (.32)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1



SECTION 906 CERTIFICATIONCEO



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Plains Exploration & Production Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James C. Flores, 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:



To the best of my knowledge, after reasonable investigation:



| | (1) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                         |  | 
|------------------------ |  | 
|Dated: November 6, 2003. |  | 



The foregoing certification is being furnished
solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.



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 the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 6612

BRIAN KEITH ROGERS , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. SCOTTIE P. CARSON, Police Sergeant; J.G. BRITO, Police Officer; THOMAS GROSSE, Undercover Officer; CELLO, Undercover Officer , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte

. Martin K. Reidinger , Chief District Judge. ( 3:19

- cv
- 00342

- MR )

Submitted : September 22, 2020 Decided: September 30 , 2020

Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Brian Keith Rogers, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Brian Keith Rogers seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying Rogers’ motion
for recusal of the then

- presiding judge. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral o rders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541, 545

- 46 (1949).
The order Rogers seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss th i s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

January 4, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

RAYMOND CURTIS EVANS,

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

v. 

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; E.

HOLDER, 

 Respondents - Appellees.

No. 09-1579

 (D.C. No. 1:09-CV-02333-ZLW)

ORDER

Before TACHA, HARTZ, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

This court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal.

The movant appeals an order of the district court transferring his 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 motion to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. 

This court has jurisdiction to review only final decisions, 28 U.S.C. § 1291,

and specific types of interlocutory orders not applicable here. A final decision is

one that “‘ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do

but execute the judgment.’” Cunningham v. Hamilton County, 527 U.S. 198, 204

(1999) (quoting Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard, 486 U.S. 517, 521-22 (1988)). The 

Appellate Case: 09-1579 Document: 01018341538 Date Filed: 01/04/2010 Page: 1 
2

transfer order here does not end the litigation in federal court. Accordingly, it is

not final or otherwise immediately appealable. . See F.D.I.C. v. McGlamery, 74

F.3d 218, 221-222 (10th Cir. 1996).

APPEAL DISMISSED. 

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Ellen Rich Reiter

Deputy Clerk/Jurisdictional Attorney

Appellate Case: 09-1579 Document: 01018341538 Date Filed: 01/04/2010 Page: 2
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed May 4, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D20

- 606 Lower Tribunal No. 17

- 18681

________________ 

### Michelle Pimienta , Appellant,

vs. 

### David Abraham Rosenfeld , Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami

- Dade County, Migna Sanchez

- Llorens , Judge. Michelle Pimienta , in proper person

. Nancy A. Hass, P.A., and Nancy A. Hass (Fort Lauderdale) , for appellee.

Before LOGUE, SCALES and LOBREE , JJ. LOBREE, J

. Michelle Pimienta ( the “ m other” ) appeals from an amended final2 judgment of paternity . After a three

- day trial during which the m other voluntarily absented herself, the trial court award ed the father, David Rosenfeld , the entirety of timesharing with the parties’ minor son as well as ultimate decision

- making authority , in accordance with the recommendation of the g uardian ad litem. Fourteen days before trial, t he mother moved for a continuance based upon the fact a psychological report had yet to be completed. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of the

m other’s motion for continuance , even i n light of the withdrawal of the

m other’s tenth attorney shortly before trial, as our review of the record shows that the delay in completing the report was solely attributable to the m other. See Hogan v. Aloia , 257 So. 3d 479, 482

- 83 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018); Cargile

– Schrage v. Schrage , 908 So. 2d 528, 529 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Finding no error in the numerous other issues raised by the m other, we affirm the trial court’s commendably detailed and thorough order. Affirmed.
**Exhibit 32****SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION**Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Spatializer AudioLaboratories, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies with respect to the Quarterly Report on Form10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission (the “10-Q Report”) that to his knowledge:1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities andExchange Act of 1934; and2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.Date: November 10, 2006/s/ Henry R. MandellHenry R. Mandell
No. 30.

#### Reuben and Charles Jordan, plaintiffs in error, *vs.*John W. Porterfield, defendant in error.

[1.] A *ca. sa.*which was erroneously dated, so that at the time it was dated, the person in whose name it bore *teste*was not a Judge of the Court from which it issued, is not void, but only irregular; and a Sheriff will not be protected who refuses, on this ground, to execute it.

Rule *vs.*Sheriff, in Madison Superior Court. Decision by Judge Andrews, at March Term, *1855.*

A *ca. sa.*in favor of Reuben and Charles Jordan *vs.*Jefferson Culbertson, was placed in the hands of the Sheriff of Madison County. The Sheriff arrested Culbertson and discharged him, on his giving bond, conditioned “ that in the event *140Culbertson should be cast in said suit, they should well and truly pay the condemnation money,” &c. At March Term, 1855, a rule *nisi*was granted against the Sheriff, to show cause why he should not pay over the amount due on said *ca. sa.*The Sheriff made return, showing various grounds, all of which were over-ruled by the Court, except the following: “Because the *ca. sa.*bears test in the name of Garnett Andrews, who, at the date of its issue, was not one of the Judges of the Superior Courts of said Statewhich ground was sustained, and the rule refused. To this decision plaintiffs’ Counsel excepted.

Plaintiffs’ Counsel proposed to prove that the ca, sa. bore a wrong date, by a clerical mistake, and that it was actually issued in December, 1854; and also moved to amend the *ca. sa.*as to this clerical mistake. All of which was refused by the Court, and plaintiffs excepted.

Upon these exceptions, error is assigned.

T. W. Thomas ; T. R. R. Cobb, for plaintiffs in error.

Peeples; Cobb *&*Hull, for defendant in error.

*By the Court.*

Starnes, J.

delivering the opinion.

Requiring this record to speak strictly for itself, it shows, nothing more than a defect in the *teste*of this *ca. sa.*If the Sheriff was to know that Garnett Andrews was not Judge of the Superior Court in December, 1852, (the date of the process,) he should be required also to. have known that this was a mere defect in the *teste*of the ca. sa.; that this *teste*was mere matter of form — not a substantial portion of the execution, and that the defect was therefore merely an irregularity, and did not vitiate that process.

In such cases of mere irregularity of process, an officer refuses to act, upon his peril.

We think the natural presumption in this case was, that there was a clerical mistake as to the date, and if the Sheriff *141found that this defect was an obstacle in the way of executing the process, it was his duty to have brought it to the attention of the Clerk, in which event, the mistake might have been remedied. The idea of permitting him to shelter himself under such a plea, on account of failure to take a proper bond, •cannot be tolerated for a moment.

Judgment reversed.
# Cultural Preservation – Love Ranch

Under the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800), Love Ranch is a potential historical property.

This feed area next to the main barn was once used to feed horses. the feed troughs remain much as...

The garage and bunkhouse is located next to the main house at Love Ranch

The remains of one of the barns and pens.

The remains of the windmill with water storage tanks

The main house in the foreground and the remains of one of the barns.
#### Pritchett *v.*Road Improvement District No. 4.

Opinion delivered February 2, 1925.

Appeal and error — reversal with directions to enter judgment.— Where this cause was remanded for a new trial for the reason that the undisputed evidence showed that appellee owed appellant a larger sum than allowed 'by the jury’s verdict, and on a second trial the testimony was the same as on the first trial, the cause will be reversed and remanded with directions to the circuit court to enter judgment for the sum shown to be due with interest.

Appeal from Van Burén Circuit Court; *J. M. Shinn,*Judge;

reversed.

*W■*6r. *RidMck,*for appellant.

McCulloch, C. J.

This case has been here on a former appeal, and, as all the facts concerning it are stated in the former opinion (158 Ark. 285), it is unnecessary to restate them.

*556On the first trial of the issues the jury rendered a verdict in favor of appellant for tfie recovery of tfie sum of $1,600, and on tfie appeal we field tfiat tfie undisputed evidence adduced by appellant showed tfiat fie was entitled to recover a sum largely in excess of tfiat amount, and we remanded tfie case for a new trial. Appellee did not introduce any testimony either on tfie first trial or tfie last, and the testimony introduced by appellant on tfie last trial was tfie same as tfiat introduced on tfie first trial. On tfie last trial tfie verdict was in favor of appellant for recovery of $1,500. ,

Tfie same reasons given for reversal in tfie former trial call for a reversal of tfie judgment now appealed from. Our reason for remanding tfie casé on tfie former appeal was tfiat appellee might desire to introduce testimony, but, as no testimony was introduced on tfie retrial of tfie case, no useful purpose would be served by remanding tfie case again for a new trial.

Tfie evidence is undisputed tfiat appellant is entitled to tfie sum of $3,387.19, the amount of tfie certificate of indebtedness given by tfie road commissioners to appellant, together with, interest.

The judgment of tfie circuit court is therefore reversed, and judgment will be rendered here for tfie sum mentioned above, with interest at legal rate from tfie date of tfie filing of tfie claim in tfie circuit court, together with all costs of tfie proceeding, including tfie costs of this appeal, and tfie judgment thus rendered will be certified down to tfie circuit court for enforcement, in accordance with tfie statute winding up tfie affairs of tfie road district.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Full House Resorts, Inc.
 Dated: November 13, 2007
    By:
    /s/   ANDRE M. HILLIOU
    .Andre M. HilliouChief Executive Officer CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Full House Resorts, Inc.
 Dated: November 13, 2007
    By:
    /s/   MARK MILLER
    .Mark MillerChief Financial Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

IN THE INTEREST OF: S.M.T.W., A

MINOR

PETITION OF: Y.H., MOTHER :

:

:

:

: No. 91 EAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

IN THE INTEREST OF: S.W., A MINOR

PETITION OF: Y.H., MOTHER :

:

:

:

: No. 92 EAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 22nd day of June, 2023

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
BOOKS-A-MILLION, INC. CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS, CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF
INCOME AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q FOR THE 6 MONTHS ENDED AUGUST 2, 1997.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-02-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-02-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           4,292
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,711
<ALLOWANCES>                                       575
<INVENTORY>                                    156,460
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               182,441<F1>
<PP&E>                                          94,335
<DEPRECIATION>                                  33,072
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 245,319<F2>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          105,183
<BONDS>                                              0<F3>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0<F4>
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           174
<OTHER-SE>                                      97,238
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   245,319
<SALES>                                        140,104
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               140,104
<CGS>                                          103,877
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  131,059
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,415
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,184
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,446
<INCOME-TAX>                                       550
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       896
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.05<F5>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.05<F5>
<FN>
<F1><OTHER CURRENT ASSETS>                       4,553
<F2><OTHER ASSETS>                               1,615
<F3><LONG TERM DEBT>                            41,136
<F4><DEFERRED INCOME TAXES>                      1,588
<F5>THE EARNINGS PER SHARE CALCULATIONS HAVE BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH 
SFAS NO. 128 AND BASIC AND DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE HAVE BEEN ENTERED IN PLACE 
OF PRIMARY AND FULLY DILUTED, RESPECTIVELY.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
# Expedition 55 crew member Drew Feustel

jsc2018e007774 - At the Gagarin Cosmonaut Training Center in Star City, Russia, Expedition 55 crew member Drew Feustel of NASA signs in Feb. 21 for the final day of crew qualification exams. Feustel, Ricky Arnold of NASA and Oleg Artemyev of Roscosmos will launch March 21 from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan on the Soyuz MS-08 spacecraft for a five-month mission on the International Space Station.

                    -  Facebook PinterestX
-  LinkedIn Emailhttps://www.nasa.gov/image-detail/jsc2018e007774-at-the-gagarin-cosmonaut-training-center-in-star-city-russia-expedition-55-crewmember-drew-feustel-of-nasa-signs-in-feb-21-for-the-final-day-of-crew-qualification-exams-feustel-r/Copy URL to clipboard>DownloadShareTags- International Space Station
TakenFebruary 21, 2018Image CreditGCTC/Andrey Shelepin/Irina SpektorSize2000x1333pxThe National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASA explores the unknown in air and space, innovates for the benefit of humanity, and inspires the world through discovery.
- About NASA's Mission
Join Us- Home
- News & Events
- Multimedia
- NASA+
- Missions
- Humans in Space
- Earth & Climate
- The Solar System
- The Universe
- Science
- Aeronautics
- Technology
- Learning Resources
- About NASA
- NASA en Español
Follow NASA-   
-   
-   
-   
- 
- More NASA Social Accounts
- NASA Newsletters
- Sitemap
- For Media
- Privacy Policy
- FOIA
- No FEAR Act
- Office of the IGBudget & Annual Reports
Agency Financial Reports
Contact NASA
Accessibility
-  									Page Last Updated:								  								Feb 16, 2024								 
-  									Page Editor:								  									Mark A. Garcia								 
-  								Responsible NASA Official:							  								Abigail Bowman
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 40733 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
GREGORY SCOTT COVEY , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 2:12

- CR

- 3

- 8

Before REAVLEY, JONES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The attorney appointed to represent Gregory Scott Covey has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Covey has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Covey ’s claim s of ineffective assistance of counsel. See United

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 19, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-40733 Document: 00512634038 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/19/2014No. 13

- 40733

States v. Isgar , 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014). Nor is the record sufficiently developed for us to address Covey’s contention that his guilty plea was coerced

. See United States v. Corbett , 742 F.2d 173, 176

- 78 (5th Cir. 1984). W e therefore
decline to consider the se claim s without prejudice to Covey’s right, if any, to

see k col lateral review

. See Isgar , 739 F.3d at 841; Corbett , 742 F.2d at 178
n.11. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Covey ’s response. We concur with counse l’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See
5 TH C IR

. R . 42.2.

2 Case: 13-40733 Document: 00512634038 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/19/2014