alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.5

CERTIFICATION OF QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q  OF  PAWNMART, INC.  FOR THE THREE MONTH PERIOD ENDED MAY 5, 2001

The undersigned are the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of PawnMart, Inc. (the "Registrant"). This Certification is made pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This Certification accompanies the Quarterly Report on Form 10-K of the Registrant for the Three Month period ended
May 5, 2001.

We
certify that such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q 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 such Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

This
Certification is executed as of August 8, 2002.

|/s/JOHN R. BOUDREAUJohn R. Boudreau Chief Executive
Officer       |  | 
|----------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|                                                                  |  | 
|/s/ROBERT W. SCHLEIZERRobert W. Schleizer Chief Financial
Officer |  | 

This
certification accompanies this Report pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

---

QuickLinks
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Patrice Loudin,

Plaintiff,

v.

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. and C. R. 

Bard, Inc., et al.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC

Civil Action No. CV-17-04223-PHX-DGC

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

Defendants C. R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.

Date: November 27, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr.

Attorney's signature

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599)

Printed name and bar number

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP

201 17th St., NW, Suite 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363

Address

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com

E-mail Address

(404) 322-6000

Telephone number

(404 322-6050

FAX number

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 9160 Filed 12/06/17 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 127 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                        April 24, 1997.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 1274) to authorize appropriations for the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology for fiscal years 1998 and 1999, and for other purposes. 
The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. Points of order against 
consideration of the bill for failure to comply with clause 2(l)(6) of rule XI 
are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed 
one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Science. After general debate the bill shall be 
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to 
consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute 
rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
Science now printed in the bill. Each section of the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. During consideration of the 
bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord 
priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment 
has caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional Record 
designated for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. Amendments so printed 
shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in 
the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or 
to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous question 
shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final 
passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY )

as Subrogee of SHIRA HAMANN, )

Plaintiff, )

-v- ) NO. 20-CV 02349

)

DELL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ) Honorable Martha M. Pacold

WORLDWIDE TECH SERVICES, LLC., )

and SIMPLO TECHNOLOGY COMPANY,) Magistrate Judge Jeffery Cummings

LTD. )

Defendants. )

AGREED ORDER

This cause coming before the court pursuant to an agreement between the parties to enter a 

dismissal order with prejudice with the Court being duly advised in the premises; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

That this complaint and all cross-claims and counterclaims are dismissed with prejudice 

with each party to bear its own fees and costs pursuant to an agreed upon settlement with the Court 

retaining jurisdiction to enforce the terms of settlement. Any future dates are hereby stricken. 

ENTERED:

........................................................

Judge 

McFADDEN LAW GROUP, P.C.

180 W. Washington Street

Suite 310

Chicago, IL 60602

(312) 641-9830

ARDC No. 6229815

jpmcfadden@mcfaddenlawgroup.com
I

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 774

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to restore freedom of speech

to the Internet and to protect children from unsuitable online material.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 13, 1997

Ms. LOFGREN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Commerce

A BILL

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to restore freedom of speech to the Internet and to protect children

from unsuitable online material.

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 ‘‘Internet Freedom and

5 Child Protection Act of 1997’’.

6 SEC. 2. INTERNET ACCESS PROVIDERS REQUIRED TO MAKE

7 SCREENING SOFTWARE AVAILABLE.

8 Section 223 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47

9 U.S.C. 223) is amended—

10 (1) in subsection (a)(1)—
2

•HR 774 IH

1 (A) by striking subparagraph (B); and

2 (B) by redesignating subparagraphs (C)

3 through (E) as subparagraphs (B) through (D),

4 respectively;

5 (2) by striking subsection (d) and inserting the

6 following:

7 ‘‘(d) OBLIGATIONS OF INTERNET ACCESS PROVID8 ERS.—

9 ‘‘(1) ACCESS PROVIDER OBLIGATION.—An

10 Internet access provider shall, at the time of enter11 ing an agreement with a customer for the provision

12 of Internet access services, offer such customer, ei13 ther for a fee or at no charge, screening software

14 that is designed to permit the customer to limit ac15 cess to material that is unsuitable for children.

16 ‘‘(2) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this sub17 section:

18 ‘‘(A) INTERNET.—The term ‘Internet’

19 means the international computer network of

20 both Federal and non-Federal interoperable

21 packet switched data networks.

22 ‘‘(B) INTERNET ACCESS PROVIDER.—The

23 term ‘Internet access provider’ means a person

24 engaged in the business of providing a com25 puter and communications facility through
3

•HR 774 IH

1 which a customer may obtain access to the

2 Internet, but does not include a common carrier

3 to the extent that it provides only transmission

4 and routing services.

5 ‘‘(C) INTERNET ACCESS SERVICES.—The

6 term ‘Internet access services’ means the provi7 sion of computer and communications services

8 through which a customer using a computer

9 and a modem or other communications device

10 may obtain access to the Internet, but does not

11 include transmission and routing services pro12 vided by a common carrier.’’; and

13 (3) by striking subsections (e) through (h).

14 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATES.

15 The amendments made by section 2 of this Act are

16 effective on the date of enactment of this Act, except that

17 the requirements of section 223(d) of the Communications

18 Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 223(d)) as amended by section

19 2 shall be effective 6 months after such date of enactment.

Æ
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Catherine G. Manning","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/cgmannin\/","title":"Tracking and Data Relay Satellite (TDRS) Fleet Characteristics","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"Pd6v6Fv9yb\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/tdrs\/tracking-and-data-relay-satellite-tdrs-fleet-characteristics\/\">Tracking and Data Relay Satellite (TDRS) Fleet Characteristics<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/tdrs\/tracking-and-data-relay-satellite-tdrs-fleet-characteristics\/embed\/#?secret=Pd6v6Fv9yb\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Tracking and Data Relay Satellite (TDRS) Fleet Characteristics” — NASA\" data-secret=\"Pd6v6Fv9yb\" 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\/07\/sn-constellation-map-march2019.png?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":337}
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Lillian Gipson","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/lillian-gipson-1nasa-gov\/","title":"X-57 Bookmark","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"FnNhydWBt7\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/stem-content\/x-57-bookmark\/\">X-57 Bookmark<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/stem-content\/x-57-bookmark\/embed\/#?secret=FnNhydWBt7\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“X-57 Bookmark” — NASA\" data-secret=\"FnNhydWBt7\" 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\/2016\/06\/x-57_maxwell_water.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":405}
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 3, 2017

No. 04

- 17

- 00452

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A. T., CHILDREN,

From the 408th Judi cial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016

- PA

- 01692 Honorable Richard Garcia, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

This is an accelerated appeal from a trial court’s order terminating appellant’s parental rights. Th e clerk’s record was filed on July 2 1, 2017 and shows a ppellant filed a notice of appeal

on July 17 , 2017

, in which he contends he is appealing a “ final decree of termination, ordered on JULY 10, 2017

. ” However, the clerk’ s record does not include a final order of termination signed by the trial court. The clerk’s office of this court contacted the district c lerk’s office by telephone and was advised that no order of termination has been signed

.

Generally, an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment. Lehmann v. Har

- Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 196 (Tex. 2001). A judgment is final for appellate purposes if it disposes of all pending parties and claims in the record. Id. Because it appears the re is no final order of termination in the clerk’s record, it appears there is no final judgment from which appellant may appeal at this time

.

Accordingly, we ORDER a ppellant to file a written response in this court on or before August 18, 2017

, showing cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(a). If appellant fails to satisfactorily r espond within the time provided, the appeal will be dismissed. See id. R. 42.3(c). If a supplemental clerk ’ s record is required to establish this court’s jurisdiction , appellant must ask the trial court clerk to prepare one and must notify the clerk of t his court that such a request was made. All deadlines in this matter are suspended until further order of the court.

We order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this order on the trial court, appellant, appellee, and the district clerk._________________________ ________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 3rd day of August, 2017

.

_______________________ ____________ Luz Estrada Chief Deputy Clerk
10067.

#### Edwards *v.*The State.

Decided November 1, 1918.

Indictment for larceny of cotton; from Grady superior court— Judge Harrell. August 7, 1918.

*W. T. Crawford, W. V. Custer,*for plaintiff in error.

*B. C. Bell, solicitor-general, 8. P. Cain, F. A. Hooper,*contra.

Bloodworth, J.

1. The demurrer to the indictment was properly overruled. The crime charged was designated in the indictment as “simple larceny, a felony.” The criminal act charged in the indictment was the larceny of a bale of cotton. “The name given to it, in the bill of indictment, does not characterize the offense; the description characterizes it.” *O’Halloran v. State,*31 *Ga.*206; *Camp*v. *State,*3 *Ga.*417 (2); *Sneed*v. *State,*16 *Ga. App.*351 (85 S. E. 354); *Lummus*v. *State,*17 *Ga. App.*414 (87 S. E. 147).

2. The grounds of the amendment to the motion show no error, the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict, and the judgment is

*Affirmed.*

*Broyles, P. J., and Harwell, J., concur.*
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on the 30th day of June, 2020, a true and accurate copy of 

the foregoing correspondence to Judge Gary S. Feinerman was served via the Court’s 

CM/ECF system upon all counsel of record.

/s/ Misha Tseytlin

MISHA TSEYTLIN

TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP

227 W. Monroe Street 

Suite 3900

Chicago, IL 60606

(608) 999-1240

(312) 759-1939 (fax)

misha.tseytlin@troutman.com

Case: 1:20-cv-02658 Document #: 32-2 Filed: 06/30/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:346
BE IT REMEMBERED:

THAT at the term of the Honorable Court of Appeals for the Tenth District of the State of

Texas, held at Waco on the 1st day of January, 201 6 , present Chief Justice TOM GRAY Justices

REX D. DAVIS and AL SCOGGINS

In the cause

No. 10

- 16

- 00288

- CV

IN RE CCI GULF COAST UPSTREAM, LLC.

Original Proceeding

the following order was entered on the 27 th day of September, 2016 :

“ A response to the petition for writ of mandamus is requested

. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(b).

Any response shall be filed with the Clerk of this Court within 21 days from the date of this order .”

I, SHARRI ROESSLER, Clerk of the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Distri ct of Texas, at

the City of Waco, hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order entered herein by

this Court in the above entitled and numbered cause as appears of record in Minute Book 13 , Page

915

.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my han d

and affix the seal of said Court at Waco , this day of

A.D. 201 6

.

SHARRI ROESSLER, CLE RK

By: ___________________________

Nita Whitener, Deputy Clerk
### ** **

### **Exhibit 12.1**

### ** **

### **MRS.FIELDS FAMOUS BRANDS, LLC**

### **COMPUTATIONOF RATIO OF EARNINGS (LOSS) TO FIXED CHARGES**

 

 
| ** **                                                        | ** ** | **Fiscal Year Ended**       | ** ** |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|-----------------------------|------------|
| ** **                                                        | ** ** | **December 29,**       | ** ** | **December 30,** | ** ** | **December 31,** | ** ** | **January 1,** | ** ** | **January 3,** | ** ** |
| ** **                                                        | ** ** | **2007**                    | ** ** | **2006** | ** ** | **2005** | ** ** | **2005** | ** ** | **2004** | ** ** |
|                                                              |       | **(Dollars  in thousands)** |       |
| Fixed Charges:                                                    |       |                        |       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Interest on debt and capitalized leases                           |       | $                           | 21,804     |   | $ | 21,478 |   | $ | 21,482 |   | $ | 25,073 |   | $ | 25,080 |   |
| Interest in rental expenses                                       |       | 350                         |       | 300 |   | 169 |   | 145 |   | 157 |   |
| Total Fixed Charges                                               |       | $                           | 22,154     |   | $ | 21,778 |   | $ | 21,651 |   | $ | 25,218 |   | $ | 25,237 |   |
|                                                              |       |                        |       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Earnings:                                                         |       |                        |       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Pretax income (loss) from continuing operations                   |       | $                           | 4,687      |   | $ | (24,341 | ) | $ | (40,716 | ) | $ | 4,816 |   | $ | 6,916 |   |
| Fixed charges                                                     |       | 22,154                      |       | 21,778 |   | 21,651 |   | 25,218 |   | 25,237 |   |
| Total Earnings (Loss)                                             |       | $                           | 26,841     |   | $ | (2,563 | ) | $ | (19,065 | ) | $ | 30,034 |   | $ | 32,153 |   |
|                                                              |       |                        |       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Ratio of earnings (loss)  to fixed charges                        |       | 1.21                        |       | N/A |   | N/A |   | 1.19 |   | 1.27 |   |
| Amount by which earnings were insufficient to cover fixed charges |       | N/A                         |       | $ | 24,341 |   | $ | 40,716 |   | N/A |   | N/A |   |

*** ***

----
Case: 1:20-cv-02350 Document #: 18 Filed: 04/29/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:79
Case: 1:20-cv-02350 Document #: 18 Filed: 04/29/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:80
Case: 1:20-cv-02350 Document #: 18 Filed: 04/29/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:81
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DENNIS L. HAMILTON,

Petitioner-Appellant,

 v.

BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS and

Neil McDowell, Warden,

Respondents-Appellees.

No. 11-16437

D.C. No. 1:10-cv-01972-OWW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Oliver W. Wanger, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 8, 2017** 

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. 

Dennis L. Hamilton appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging a 2009 decision by the

FILED

MAR 14 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Board of Parole Hearings denying parole and deferring his next parole hearing in

accordance with California Penal Code § 3041.5 (“Marsy’s Law”). We dismiss. 

This court issued a certificate of appealability (“COA”) on whether

application of Marsy’s Law to delay Hamilton’s next parole hearing violates the Ex

Post Facto Clause. We vacate the COA as improvidently granted and dismiss this

appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 934-35 (9th

Cir. 2016) (en banc) (holding that claims fall outside “the core of habeas corpus” if

success will not necessarily lead to immediate or earlier release from confinement),

cert. denied, 580 U.S. __ (U.S. Jan. 9, 2017) (No. 16-6556); Phelps v. Alameda,

366 F.3d 722, 727-28, 730 (9th Cir. 2004) (merits panel has the power to rule on

the propriety of a COA).

The dismissal of this appeal does not preclude Hamilton from pursuing

conditions of confinement claims in a properly filed civil rights action under 42

U.S.C. § 1983. 

All pending motions are denied as moot.

DISMISSED.

2 11-16437