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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
inchorus.com's statements of operations and balance sheets and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                       1,995,900
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,373,600
<ALLOWANCES>                                   672,200
<INVENTORY>                                     98,100
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,950,000
<PP&E>                                         193,800
<DEPRECIATION>                                  36,800
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,288,600
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,472,800
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  1,264,400
<COMMON>                                        10,300
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,345,800)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,288,600
<SALES>                                        680,200
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               680,200
<CGS>                                          491,100
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,056,700
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (65,800)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,311,100
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (6,112,900)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    35,700
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (6,148,600)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (7,241,400)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.88)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.88)


</TABLE>
Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter

United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 12-1354

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,

v.

GEORGE F. RAYNER,

Defendant, Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

[Hon. John A. Woodcock, Jr., U.S. District Judge]

Before

Howard, Selya and Thompson,

Circuit Judges.

Harold J. Hainke and Hainke & Tash on brief for appellant.

Margaret D. McGaughey, Assistant United States Attorney, and

Thomas E. Delahanty II, United States Attorney, on brief for

appellee.

January 18, 2013
Per Curiam. This is a single-issue sentencing appeal. 

It follows a jury verdict finding defendant-appellant George F.

Rayner guilty of bankruptcy fraud, see 18 U.S.C. § 152(1), and the

district court's imposition of an incarcerative sentence of one

year and one day.

The defendant's challenge to the sentence asserts that

the district court did not appropriately consider and weigh the

sentencing factors limned in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and, as a result,

fashioned a sentence that was greater than necessary to provide

just punishment. We have carefully reviewed the district court

record and the parties' briefs, and we find the defendant's

argument to be meritless.

We need not tarry. The guideline sentencing range in

this case is not contested; that range spans 21-27 months. The

district court effected a downward variance in favor of the

defendant and imposed a sentence of one year and one day — slightly

more than one-half of the low point of the guideline sentencing

range. In doing so, the court explicitly considered and weighed

the totality of the circumstances, including the factors prescribed

by 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

As best we can tell, the defendant's real complaint is

not that the district court ignored the appropriate factors but,

rather, that it weighed those factors differently than the

defendant had hoped. Because the resulting sentence is neither

-2-
procedurally flawed nor substantively unreasonable, it commands our

approbation. See United States v. Clogston, 662 F.3d 588, 592-93

(1st Cir. 2011); United States v. Dixon, 449 F.3d 194, 204-05 (1st

Cir. 2006).

We need go no further. The judgment of the district

court is summarily affirmed. See 1st Cir. R. 27.0(c).

Affirmed.

-3-
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. RODNEY FRAZIER.

April 10, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. MARK H. SEYMOUR.

July 2, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
HAVIOWAL ACROHAUTICS AHD WACC ADllHlSTRATlOH
#### Nicholas Ricks *v.*Thos. O’Neil et al.

Notice — Sufficiency of Pleading.

The failure of a defendant to deny the allegation in a petition “that the defendant had been notified for more than .... months to surrender possession,” must be regarded as an admission of legal notice.

Landlord and Tenant.

A tenant cannot dispute his landlord’s title.

January 28, 1868.

APPEAL EROM NELSON CIRCUIT COURT.

*220McKay, *for appellant.*

Muir, *for appellee.*

Opinion of ti-ie Court by

Judge Peters:

Prom the testimony of Judge Newman it appears that appellant held the possession of the premises as the tenant of appellees, and conceding’ as such he was entitled to notice to quit it is alleged in the petition that he had been notified more than — months to surrender the posesssion and he had failed to do so. This allegation is not answered, and must be regarded as an admission of a legal notice to quit the premises.

Anna Cashott as is abundantly shown, died childless, and never had a child, and it is furthermore shown that Lewis Thomas and Eliza were her heirs, capable of inheriting her estate, from whom appellees derive title to the house and lot, she having died intestate. Appellant therefore having no interest in the estate was content to remain there as the tenant of appellees and cannot dispute their title.

The action was brought in equity; but if appellant had desired the case to be tried in ordinary on his motion to transfer the case the judge doubtless would have made' the transfer, but whether he would or not, his failure to make the motion must be regarded as a waiver of the right and the action was properly retained, and disposed of.

No available error for a reversal of the judgment exists. Wherefore the judgment is *affirmed.*
II 

Calendar No. 510 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2286 

To designate the Orville Wright Federal Building and the Wilbur Wright 

Federal Building in Washington, District of Columbia. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 6, 2004 

Mr. VOINOVICH (for himself, Mrs. DOLE, Mr. DEWINE, Mr. INHOFE, and Mr. 

EDWARDS) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

MAY 11, 2004 

Reported by Mr. INHOFE, without amendment 

A BILL 

To designate the Orville Wright Federal Building and the 

Wilbur Wright Federal Building in Washington, District 

of Columbia. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. ORVILLE WRIGHT FEDERAL BUILDING. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The Federal building located at 

5 800 Independence Avenue, Southwest, in Washington, 
2 

•S 2286 RS 

1 District of Columbia, shall be known and designated as 

2 the ‘‘Orville Wright Federal Building’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the Federal building referred to in subsection 

6 (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Orville 

7 Wright Federal Building’’. 

8 SEC. 2. WILBUR WRIGHT FEDERAL BUILDING. 

9 (a) DESIGNATION.—The Federal building located at 

10 600 Independence Avenue, Southwest, in Washington, 

11 District of Columbia, shall be known and designated as 

12 the ‘‘Wilbur Wright Federal Building’’. 

13 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg14 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

15 States to the Federal building referred to in subsection 

16 (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Wilbur 

17 Wright Federal Building’’. 

Calendar No. 510 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2286 

A BILL 

To designate the Orville Wright Federal Building 

Washington, District of Columbia. and the Wilbur Wright Federal Building in 

MAY 11, 2004 

Reported without amendment
<PAGE>
                                                                   Exhibit 99.1

                           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 Annual Report of Radware Ltd. (the "Company") on Form
20-F for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Roy Zisapel, acting
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss.1906 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 presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date: April 1, 2003





                                        /s/ Roy Zisapel
                                        -----------------------------
                                        Roy Zisapel
                                        Chief Executive Officer
                                        (Principal Executive Officer)
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-06-00419-CR

Brenda Elaine King, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 5 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. 687829, HONORABLE NANCY WRIGHT HOHENGARTEN, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Brenda Elaine King appeals pro se her misdemeanor conviction for resisting

arrest. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 38.03 (West 2003). Challenging the jury’s finding of guilt,

appellant complains that the evidence showed that she did not resist arrest and that she was

wrongfully convicted.

Appellant did not request a reporter’s record or file an affidavit of indigence. See

Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(b); In re Spiegel, 6 S.W.3d 643, 646 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1999, no pet.); see

also Halliburton v. State, 2006 Tex. App. LEXIS 2644, at *3-4 (Tex. App.—Tyler Mar. 31, 2006,

no pet.) (not designated for publication). After appellant was given notice and an opportunity to

cure, the appeal was submitted for decision without a reporter’s record. See Tex. R. App. P.

37.3(c)(1).
2

When a reporter’s record is necessary for appellate review and the appellant fails to

file the reporter’s record, a presumption arises that the reporter’s record would support the

trial court’s judgment. Rittenhouse v. Sabine Valley Ctr. Found., 161 S.W.3d 157, 165

(Tex. App.—Texarkana 2005, no pet.). Moreover, if an appellant does not initiate the completion

of a record and her issue involves matters omitted from the record due to her failure to request or pay

for the record, her actions will prevent an appellate court from adequately addressing the dispute.

In this case, appellant did not request a reporter’s record nor did she file an affidavit of indigence.

Without the reporter’s record, we cannot determine that the trial court erred.

Accordingly, we overrule appellant’s issues and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

__________________________________________

Jan P. Patterson, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Pemberton and Waldrop 

Affirmed

Filed: June 12, 2007

Do Not Publish
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, David C. Owen, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of ICOP Digital, Inc.; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary tomake the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cashflows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report; 

4. The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the registrant and have: 

a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisannual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this annual report based on such evaluation; and 

c. Disclosed in this annual report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors: 

a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: March 24, 2006
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2408

To adjust the boundaries of the Helena, Lolo, and Beaverhead-Deerlodge 

National Forests in the State of Montana. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 11, 2004

Mr. BURNS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL

To adjust the boundaries of the Helena, Lolo, and Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forests in the State of Montana.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Montana National For5 ests Boundary Adjustment Act of 2004’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

7 In this Act: 

8 (1) FOREST.—The term ‘‘Forest’’ means the 

9 Helena National Forest, Lolo National Forest, and 
2

•S 2408 IS 

1 Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest in the State 

2 of Montana. 

3 (2) MAP.—The term ‘‘map’’ means—

4 (A) the map entitled ‘‘Blackfoot Commu5 nity Project Acquisition Proposed Adjustments, 

6 Helena National Forest Boundary’’ and dated 

7 March 11, 2004; 

8 (B) the map entitled ‘‘Blackfoot Commu9 nity Project Acquisition Region One, Lolo Na10 tional Forest Boundary’’ and dated March 11, 

11 2004; and 

12 (C) the map entitled ‘‘Blackfoot Commu13 nity Project Acquisition Proposed Adjustments, 

14 Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest Bound15 ary Adjustment’’ and dated March 11, 2004. 

16 (3) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means 

17 the Secretary of Agriculture. 

18 SEC. 3. HELENA, LOLO, AND BEAVERHEAD-DEERLODGE NA19 TIONAL FORESTS BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT. 

20 (a) IN GENERAL.—The boundaries of the Forests are 

21 modified as depicted on the maps. 

22 (b) MAPS.— 

23 (1) AVAILABILITY.—The maps shall be on file 

24 and available for public inspection in— 
3

•S 2408 IS 

1 (A) the Office of the Chief of the Forest 

2 Service; and 

3 (B) the office of the Regional Forester, 

4 Missoula, Montana. 

5 (2) CORRECTION AUTHORITY.—The Secretary 

6 may make technical corrections to the maps. 

7 (c) ADMINISTRATION.—Any land or interest in land 

8 acquired within the boundaries of the Forests for National 

9 Forest System purposes shall be managed in accordance 

10 with—

11 (1) the Act of March 1, 1911 (commonly known 

12 as the ‘‘Weeks Law’’) (16 U.S.C. 480 et seq.); and 

13 (2) the laws (including regulations) applicable 

14 to the National Forest System. 

15 (d) LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND.—For 

16 purposes of section 7 of the Land and Water Conservation 

17 Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 4601–9), the boundaries 

18 of the Forests, as adjusted under subsection (a), shall be 

19 considered to be the boundaries of the Forests as of Janu20 ary 1, 1965. 

21 (e) EFFECT.—Nothing in this Act limits the author22 ity of the Secretary to adjust the boundaries of the Forests 

23 under section 11 of the Act of March 1, 1911 (16 U.S.C. 

24 521).

Æ
#### IMPAC, INC. v. CITY OF PATERSON.

May 16, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juvencio Murillo LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-10582.

D.C. No. CR-01-01112-SRB.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*826Submitted Sept. 8, 2003.*

Decided Sept. 15, 2003.

Georgia B. Ellexson, Esq., USPX-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Alex Gonzalez, Gonzalez & Smith, Mesa, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before PREGERSON, THOMAS and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Juvencio Murillo Lopez appeals his guilty-plea conviction and 57-month sentence for possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(l)(A)(viii).

Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel for Lopez has filed a brief stating that there are no meritorious issues for review, and a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Lopez has filed a pro se supplemental brief and a request for judicial notice.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no further issues for review. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"Winners Announced in Gateways to Blue Skies Aeronautics Competition","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"y8ZzfqlUYM\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/aeronautics\/winners-announced-in-gateways-to-blue-skies-aeronautics-competition\/\">Winners Announced in Gateways to Blue Skies Aeronautics Competition<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/aeronautics\/winners-announced-in-gateways-to-blue-skies-aeronautics-competition\/embed\/#?secret=y8ZzfqlUYM\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Winners Announced in Gateways to Blue Skies Aeronautics Competition” — NASA\" data-secret=\"y8ZzfqlUYM\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/winners_2023.jpg?w=320","thumbnail_width":320,"thumbnail_height":240}
Exhibit 32.2

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

of Interim Chief Financial Officer

In connection with the Annual Report of eDiets.com, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Carla Cox, Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to the best of my knowledge and belief:

(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.



|                     |  |  |  |        |  |                                
|-------------------- |  |  |  | ------ |  | -------------------------------
|Date: March 12, 2008 |  |  |  |        |  |                                
|                     |  |  |  | By:    |  | /s/ Carla Cox                  
|                     |  |  |  | Name:  |  | Carla Cox                      
|                     |  |  |  | Title: |  | Interim Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has
been provided to eDiets.com, Inc. and will be retained by eDiets.com, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
NASA HEADQUARTERS ORGANIZATION CHART 

L 

ADMINISTRATOR 

DR. JAMES C. FLETCHER 

DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR 

DALE 0. MYERS 

ASSOCIATE DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR 

WILLIS H. SHAPLEY 

ASSOCIATE DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR 

(INSTITUTION) 

DR. NOEL W. HINNERS 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER 

HENRY E. CLEMENTS 

A 

AD 

ADA 

ADI 

AE 

J 

DIRECTOR, K 

SMALL AND 

I 

DISADVANTAGE0 

BUSINESS UTll.lZATlON
Highlight: SAMPE 2022, Charlotte NC, May 23-26

Society of Advanced Materials and Process Engineering (SAMPE)

• North America’s premier advanced materials and process 

engineering conference and exhibition tradeshow

• HiCAM PM on panel, “Federal Agencies Perspectives on 

Composites Materials and Manufacturing”, with Navy, DoE, 

NIST and NSF

HiCAM

ACP,

HICAM 

partner

AFRL 

project,

HICAM 

partner