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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED BALANCE SHEET AS OF 7/31/99, AUDITED BALANCE SHEET AS OF 1/30/99 AND
UNAUDITED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND CASH FLOWS FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIODS
ENDED 7/31/99 AND 8/1/98 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
QUARTERLY REPORT FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED 7/31/199.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-02-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1999
<CASH>                                           1,046
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     12,638
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                17,564
<PP&E>                                          34,934
<DEPRECIATION>                                  18,376
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  34,122
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,609
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        98,663
<OTHER-SE>                                    (90,087)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    34,122
<SALES>                                         13,477
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,477
<CGS>                                            8,789
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,478
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   132
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (16)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,938)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,938)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,938)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
# United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-40176 Conference Calendar

United States of America,

Plaintiff—Appellee ,

versus
Horace Grely Dean,

Defendant—Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:18-CR-4-1

Before King, Southwick, and Ho, Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam: * The attorney appointed to represent Horace Grely Dean 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). Dean has filed a response. The record is not sufficiently

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 27, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-40176 Document: 00515617642 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/27/2020No. 20-40176

2 developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Dean’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claims without prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar , 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).
We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Dean’s response. We concur with counsel’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 5th Cir. R . 42.2. Case: 20-40176 Document: 00515617642 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/27/2020
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          10,506
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             175
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     27,232
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                             676
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                               703
<LOANS>                                        260,260
<ALLOWANCE>                                      6,187
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 316,845
<DEPOSITS>                                     262,562
<SHORT-TERM>                                    17,537
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              2,648
<LONG-TERM>                                      1,347
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,415
<OTHER-SE>                                      27,336
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 316,845
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 18,855
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,336
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    83
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                20,274
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               6,871
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,642
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           12,632
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      410
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 11,335
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,729
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       4,729
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,130
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.41
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    9.61
<LOANS-NON>                                      3,932
<LOANS-PAST>                                     1,033
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 5,825
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      121
<RECOVERIES>                                        73
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                6,187
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             6,187
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.2

Certification of Principal Financial Officer
Pursuant to U.S.C. Section 1350
As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, John E. Yetter, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
Derma Sciences, Inc., hereby certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2002 of Derma
Sciences, Inc. (the "Form 10-QSB") upon my best knowledge and belief fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Derma Sciences, Inc.

|Dated:  November 14, 2002 | /s/ John E. YetterJohn E. Yetter, CPAVice President
     and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
|------------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Chief Judge Fitzpatrick, Judges Willis and Annunziata Argued at Alexandria, Virginia

AHMAD DJADALI MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY v. Record No. 0301-98-4 JUDGE JERE M. H. WILLIS, JR. OCTOBER 27, 1998 FARZANEH DJADALI

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY F. Bruce Bach, Judge James B. Pattison for appellant. William J. Lyden (The Law Firm of Evan H. Farr, P.C., on brief), for appellee.

Ahmad Djadali contends that the trial court erred: (1) in incorporating into the final divorce decree provisions denying child support; and (2) in refusing to grant a hearing on the issue of child support during the divorce proceeding. We affirm. On May 23, 1997, Ahmad Djadali filed suit for divorce from his wife, Farzaneh Djadali. They have one child, Helal Al-Dean (Kevin) Djadali. The couple agreed that Ahmad was to have physical custody of Kevin. In 1993, the couple entered into a separation agreement, which remained effective by its terms. The 1993 agreement provides, in relevant part: It is agreed by the parties that both parties are responsible for the support of their minor child. It is further stated that the party who does not have physical custody of the child shall pay to the party with

* Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.- 2 - physical custody of the child the sum of $ 0.00 per month for the support and maintenance of the infant child of the parties.

The husband petitioned the Prince William County Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court for child support. By consent order entered February 22, 1996, the juvenile and domestic relations court denied support in accordance with the separation agreement.

By pendente lite order entered on July 30, 1997, the trial court incorporated the 1993 agreement and the 1996 consent order and denied support. At the hearing on the final divorce decree, the trial court ruled that the support issue had been fully and fairly litigated at the pendente lite hearing. It refused to rehear the support issue and incorporated the support provisions

of the pendente lite order into the final divorce decree.

The pendente lite order shows on its face that the trial court heard evidence from the parties on the merits of child support. It calculated the presumptive support according to the statutory guidelines and stated in writing its findings and reasons for varying from the guideline amount. This record supports the trial court's ruling that the issue of child support was fully and fairly litigated at the pendente lite hearing. We have before us no other record of that hearing, and nothing before us disputes the trial court's ruling. We have before us no proffer of the circumstances underlying the child support ruling at the pendente lite hearing and no- 3 - proffer of any material circumstances justifying a change in that determination. The record reflects no such proffer to the trial court at the hearing on the final divorce decree. Thus, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's refusal to reopen the

case and to reconsider a decided issue. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Affirmed.
**EXHIBIT      (32)**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. § 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|  (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 the Company.                                                                   |   |

| Dated:                  March 24, 2006 |   | /s/                  Tony W. Wolfe       |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                   |   | Tony                  W. Wolfe           |   |
|                                   |   | Chief                  Executive Officer |   |
|                                   |   |                                     |   |
|                                   |   |                                     |   |
| Dated:                  March 24, 2006 |   | /s/                  A. Joseph Lampron   |   |
|                                   |   | A.                  Joseph Lampron       |   |
|                                   |   | Chief                  Financial Officer |   |
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6889

RAFAEL J. DOMINGUEZ,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

BUREAU OF PRISONS,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief

District Judge. (5:06-ct-03088-FL)

Submitted: August 30, 2007 Decided: September 10, 2007

Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rafael J. Dominguez, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Edward Lockridge,

FEDERAL MEDICAL CENTER, Butner, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Rafael J. Dominguez, a federal prisoner, appeals the

district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241

(2000) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by

the district court. Dominguez v. Bureau of Prisons, No. 5:06-ct03088-FL (E.D.N.C. June 4, 2007). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
IV 

House Calendar No. 60 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 414 

[Report No. 115–195] 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3003) to amend the Immigration 

and Nationality Act to modify provisions relating to assistance by States, 

and political subdivision of States, in the enforcement of Federal immigration laws, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 27, 2017 

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 

resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3003) to amend 

the Immigration and Nationality Act to modify provisions 

relating to assistance by States, and political subdivision 

of States, in the enforcement of Federal immigration 

laws, and for other purposes. 

1 Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it 

2 shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 

3 3003) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to 

4 modify provisions relating to assistance by States, and poVerDate Sep 11 2014 21:55 Jun 27, 2017 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HR414.RH HR414

srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 414 RH 

1 litical subdivision of States, in the enforcement of Federal 

2 immigration laws, and for other purposes. All points of 

3 order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill 

4 shall be considered as read. All points of order against 

5 provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question 

6 shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any 

7 amendment thereto to final passage without intervening 

8 motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and 

9 controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of 

10 the Committee on the Judiciary; and (2) one motion to 

11 recommit. 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with BILLS

srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with BILLS
House Calendar No. 60 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 414 

[Report No. 115–195] 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3003) 

for other purposes. enforcement of Federal immigration laws, and States, and political subdivision of States, in the modify provisions relating to assistance by to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to 

JUNE 27, 2017 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with BILLS
Gravity Offload for Patient Rehabilitation

A NEW CO-DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY

Reference No: NNJ16ZBH020O

Potential Commercial Applications: medical rehabilitation, neuromuscular, 

proprioceptive retraining and others

Keywords: rehabilitation, harness design, controls monitoring, gravity offload, control 

monitoring

Purpose:

NASA JSC seeks parties interested in co-developing technology associated with its 

Active Response Gravity Offload System (ARGOS).

The ARGOS allows humans, robotics, and passive systems to experience reduced gravity 

environments from microgravity to full gravity (e.g., earth surface, lunar surface, Martian 

surface and microgravity). 

The medical community has noted that application of such a system would greatly 

improve the state-of-the-art for medical rehabilitation for conditions including lower 

extremity rehabilitation, neuromuscular and proprioceptive retraining. ARGOS is more 

sensitive to subtle motions than any system currently available.

Technology:

ARGOS supplies continuous ability to offload a portion or all of a person's weight during 

dynamic motions such as walking, running, and jumping. The ARGOS system tracks the 

person’s motion in the horizontal direction to maintain a vertical offload force directly 

above the person by measuring the deflection of the cable and adjusting accordingly. 

ARGOS accomplishes this feat using a full motion based robotic system. This system, 

while similar to an under-hung gantry crane system, reacts to the motion of the mass

instead of a manually operated controller.

NASA designed this facility to be capable of accomplishing the following: surface 

operation studies; space suit and space vehicle requirements development; space suit and 

space vehicle design evaluation; and testing of rovers and robots in simulated reduced 

gravity environments.

For more information please visit the ARGOS website.

R&D Status:

The ARGOS utilizes advanced hardware and software technology that continues to be 

developed and updated. 

Challenges to adapting the ARGOS for patient rehabilitation include harness comfort and 

reduction of human performance caused by a harness system. 
Intellectual Property:

US Patent No.: US 9,194,977 B1 – Active Response Gravity Offload System and 

Method. 

This co-development project may produce new IP that could be jointly owned by NASA 

and the partner or may become the property of the partner.
IV 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 178 

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to require that before 

any bill or joint resolution repealing or amending the Patient Protection 

and Affordable Care Act or the Health Care and Education Affordability 

Reconciliation Act of 2010 in the House it should be made available 

on a public website of the House. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 8, 2017 

Mr. KHANNA submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Rules 

RESOLUTION 

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to 

require that before any bill or joint resolution repealing 

or amending the Patient Protection and Affordable Care 

Act or the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010 in the House it should be made 

available on a public website of the House. 

1 Resolved, That rule XXI of the Rules of the House 

2 of Representatives is amended by adding at the end the 

3 following new clause: 

4 ‘‘13.(a) It shall not be in order to consider a bill or 

5 joint resolution proposing to repeal or amend the Patient 

6 Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111– 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 178 IH 

1 148) or the Health Care and Education Affordability Rec2 onciliation Act of 2010 (Public Law 111–152), or part 

3 thereof, in the House, in the Committee of the Whole 

4 House on the state of the Union, or in the Committees 

5 on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means, unless 

6 an easily searchable electronic estimate and comparison 

7 prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Of8 fice is made available on a publicly available website of 

9 the House. 

10 ‘‘(b) It shall not be in order to consider a rule or 

11 order that waives the application of paragraph (a).’’. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
#### Littell and Another *v.*Bradford.

The circumstance that an appeal-bond, in the case of an appeal from the judgment of a justice of the peace, bears date after the bond was filed in the clerk’s office, is no objection to the bond.

And the fact that the appeal had' been prayed for need not be recited in the justice’s transcript.

ERROR to the *Greene*Circuit Court.

Perkins, J.

This was an action of assumpsit commenced before a justice of the peace,, and removed by appeal into the Circuit Court. A bill of exceptions shows that the appeal was there dismissed, on the defendant’s motion, for want of a sufficient appeal-bond. The judgment before the justice was rendered on the 12th of *March,*1842, and the appeal papers, including the bond, were filed in the clerk’s office on the 1st of *April*following. The bond is dated on the 2d of *April,*one day after the filing of the appeal papers in the clerk’s office. This is the only defect.

The objection is groundless. The date of the bond is no material part of it. The dqy of its execution may be shown *186by parol. The filing of it in the clerk’s office shows it was then executed, and that it is misdated. The misdating does not vitiate.

*W. Quarles,*for the plaintiffs.

*C. P. Hester,*for the defendant.

It is also, attempted in this Court to sustain the dismissal, on the ground that the magistrate’s transcript does not recite that an appeal was prayed. It is decided in *Humble*v. *Williams,*4 Blackf. 473, that the filing of an appeal-bond is a sufficient prayer of an appeal. That was done in 'this case.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is reversed with costs.. Cause remanded, &c.