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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1998
<CASH>                                           2,672
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,806
<ALLOWANCES>                                       790
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                19,264
<PP&E>                                             834
<DEPRECIATION>                                     333
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  20,627
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,874
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,149
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    20,627
<SALES>                                         13,391
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,391
<CGS>                                            7,910
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,910
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (183)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   159
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  22
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,531
<INCOME-TAX>                                       389
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,142
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .55
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .50
        

</TABLE>
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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 September 8, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-20874 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus GERARDO VELASQUEZ-GONZALEZ, also known as Gerardo Velasquez, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:05-CR-180-ALL

-------------------- Before KING, GARWOOD, and JOLLY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Gerardo Velasquez-Gonzalez raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
DENY; Opinion Filed January 14, 2020.

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-19-01342-CV

IN RE STEVEN B. AUBREY, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 14th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-15-08135

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Myers, Schenck, and Nowell

Opinion by Justice Nowell

Before the Court is relator’s November 4, 2019 petition for writ of mandamus seeking 

relief with respect to two post-judgment discovery orders. In his petition, relator also challenges 

the trial court’s jurisdiction, and the denial of his motion to appear at an August 14, 2019 hearing 

by telephone.

To be entitled to mandamus relief, relator must show both that the trial court has clearly 

abused its discretion and that relator has no adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co. 

of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). After reviewing the petition, and 

the mandamus record, we conclude relator has not shown he is entitled to the relief requested. 

Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a) (the 
–2–

court must deny the petition if the court determines relator is not entitled to the relief sought). 

191342F.P05

/Erin A. Nowell/

ERIN A. NOWELL

JUSTICE
#### James Stegar's Admr. *v.*Jordon Perkins.

New Trials — Newly Discovered Evidence — Diligence—Witness to Fact in Issue.

It is not shown that any effort was made to discover the evidence before the trial of the original action, nor is the evidence discovered of that certain and unerring character that would, on a second trial, inevitably produce a different result and the chancellor will never intei’fere with a judgment at law, unless the evidence discovered would be such as to change the verdict.

APPEAL PROM GARRARD CIRCUIT COURT.

June 21, 1872.

Opinion by

Judge Peters:

The evidence alleged to have been discovered since the trial at law applies directly to the question in issue on that trial, and it does not appear that appellant used reasonable diligence in his efforts to procure the evidence which he professes recently to have discovered. The witness whose evidence he now professes to have discovered is a brother of Jacob Froman, who, it is alleged, was the debtor of appellee, resided in the same county where the alleged debt was created and it is not shown that any effort was made to discover or to procure the evidence before the trial of the original action.

Nor is the evidence discovered of that certain and unerring character that would on a second trial inevitably produce a different result; and the chancellor will never interfere with a judgment at law unless the evidence discovered would be such as to change the verdict. *Daniel v. Daniel,*2 J. J. Mar. 52. In this case, it is said, we know of no case in which a new trial has been granted or sanctioned by this court on the isolated ground *737of discovery of witnesses to a fact involved in the issue at law and tried.

*Owsley & Brudett, for appellants.*

*Dunlap, for appellee.*

Wherefore the judgment is affirmed.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-1055

ROBERTSON & PENN, INC.,

Appellant,

v.

Pete Geren, SECRETARY OF THE ARMY,

Appellee.

James F. Nagle , Oles Morrison Rinker & Baker, LLP, of Seattle, Washington,

argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Jonathan A. DeMella

.

Kent C. Kiffner , Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division,

United States Department of Ju stice, of Washingt on, DC, argued for appellee. With him

on the brief were Jeanne E. Davidson , Director, and Mark A. Melnick , Assistant

Director.

Appealed from: Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals

Judge Diana S. DickinsonNOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-1055

ROBERTSON & PENN, INC.,

Appellant,

v.

Pete Geren, SECRETARY OF THE ARMY,

Appellee.



## Judgment

ON APPEAL from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals

in CASE NO. 55622.

This CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

Per Curiam (Before BRYSON and GAJARSA, Circuit Judges , and ST. EVE, District Judge ). *

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R.36

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

DATED: June 5, 2009 /s/ Jan Horbaly

Jan Horbaly, Clerk

* The Honorable Amy J. St. Eve, Un ited States District Judge for the Northern

District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

# muiteb**~tates** 

# (!Courtof§ppeaIs fortbejf 

# eberaI (!Circuit

IN RE FINJAN, INC. 2011-1542 (Reexamination No. 90/008,684) Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board ofPatent Appeals and Interferences. 

### ORDER The appellee responds to the court's order concerning the court's decision in 

### In re Antor Media, 689 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Upon consideration thereof, IT Is ORDERED THAT: (1) The stay of proceedings is lifted and this case is ready for assignment to a merits panel. (2) A copy of the appellee's response shall be transmitted to the merits panel assigned to hear this case.INREFINJAN 

## NOV 09 

## 2012 Date

cc: Paul J. Andre, Esq. Raymond T. Chen, Esq. s8 2 FOR THE COURT /s/ Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk



## u S.

## cOUnf~'F'l~PEALS FOR

. THEFEDERJ'J.cmculT 

## NOV 09**~Ull** 

### JAN

### HOH8Al.Y 

### Cl.ERK
Exhibit 31.1
                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Scott Barek, certify that:

      1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on
            Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in
            respect of periods included in the year covered by this annual
            report, of Corporate Backed Trust Certificates, Goldman Sachs
            Capital I Securities-Backed Series 2004-7 Trust (the "Trust");

      2.    Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a
            whole, does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or
            omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,
            in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made,
            not misleading as of the last day of the period covered by this
            annual report;

      3.    Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
            required to be provided to the Depositor by the Trustee under the
            pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, for inclusion in these
            reports is included in these reports;

      4.    I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
            Depositor and the Trustee under the pooling and servicing, or
            similar, agreement and based upon my knowledge and the annual
            compliance review required under that agreement, and except as
            disclosed in the reports, the Depositor and Trustee have each
            fulfilled its obligations under that agreement; and

      5.    The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
            compliance by the Trustee and the Depositor with the minimum
            servicing or similar standards based upon the report provided by an
            independent public accountant, after conducting a review in
            compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage
            Bankers or similar procedure, as set forth in the pooling and
            servicing, or similar, agreement that is included in these reports.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: U.S. Bank Trust National
Association, as Trustee.


Date: March 26, 2008


/s/ Scott Barek
----------------------------------
Scott Barek, Senior Vice President
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

*CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERCERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350*

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Granite City Food &Brewery Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period endedMarch 28, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the “Report”), I, Monica A. Underwood, Interim Chief FinancialOfficer and Corporate Controller of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.                                       the Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

 

2.                                       the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by theCompany and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staffupon request.

 
| Dated: | May 3, 2004 | By                                                         | /s/ Monica A.  Underwood |   |
|--------|-------------|------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------|--------|
|   |        | Monica A.  Underwood                                       |
|   |        | Interim Chief  Financial Officer and  Corporate Controller |

 

----
#### James Foxworthy’s Heirs *v.*W. W. Trimble, etc.

Attorney and Client — Attorney as Party Plaintiff — Counsel for Adversary —Not Entitled to Fee.

Trimble was one of the original plaintiffs and his personal interest was antagonistic to that represented by the administrator. Under such circumstances it was impossible for him to have protected his individual interests and at the same time discharge his duty as counsel to one of his adversaries.

APPEAL FROM HARRISON CIRCUIT COURT.

June 10, 1871.

*Ward, for appellants.*

*Trimble, Boyd, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

The plea of limitation as to the judgment rendered in 1866 is sustained and the appeal as to that judgment dismissed. We see no reason for disturbing the order directing the commissioner to convey the land sold under the original judgment to the purchaser, Cladwell. Besides, the latter is no party to this appeal, and we can take no action in the premises by which his rights would be affected.

We are, however, of the opinion that the allowance of one hundred dollars to Appellee Trimble in the way of an attorney’s fee for representing the administrator of Foxworthy in this litigation can not be sustained.

It seems that Trimble was one of the original plaintiffs, and his personal interest was necessarily antagonistic to that represented by the administrator. Under such circumstances we do not well see how it is possible for him to have protected his individual interests and at the same time discharge his duty as counsel to one of his adversaries.

Wherefore said order is reversed, and, upon the return of the cause, the court below will set the same aside, and hold it for naught.
Exhibit
      32





ENERGENX,
      INC.





SECTION
      1350 CERTIFICATIONS





In
      connection with the periodic report of ENERGENX, INC., a Nevada corporation
      (the
“Company”), on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2006, as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, GARY A. BEDINI, Chief
      Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely
      for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code,
      that to the best of my knowledge:





(1)
      the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
      applicable, 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 at the dates
      and for the periods indicated.





This
      Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission.





Date:
      March 29, 2007





By:
            /s/
                Gary A.
                BediniGary
                A. Bedini





In
      connection with the periodic report of ENERGENX, INC., a Nevada corporation
      (the
“Company”), on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2006, as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, RICK M. STREET, Chief
      Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely
      for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code,
      that to the best of my knowledge:





(1)
      the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
      applicable, 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 at the dates
      and for the periods indicated.





This
      Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission.





Date:
      March 29, 2007





By:
            /s/
                Rick M.
                StreetRick
                M. Street
Subject: EXT :FW: Feedback on NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 concept paper 

Date: Thursday, March 9, 2023 1:47:14 PM 

Attachments: CSF 2.0 Concept Paper 01-18-23.pdf 

CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening 

attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. 

FYI 

Sent: Monday, February 13, 2023 10:59 PM 

To: cyberframework <cyberframework@nist.gov> 

Subject: Feedback on NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 concept paper 

Hi, glad to see that NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 will be put forward in the near 

future. 

As a CSF 1.0 practitioner, I have witnessed the huge security improvements across 

my company during the past three years. Thanks a lot for your selfless contribution to 

global cybersecurity. However, the cybersecurity threats and business styles 

constantly change over the time. As it can be seen, the cloud services are becoming 

widespread in the modern days, followed by many specific threats and risks. To better 

cope with cloud security, I hope the following points are included in CSF 2.0: 

1. Cloud-based Incident Response 

Due to the varied cloud deployment models and the division of responsibilities 

between the cloud service provider and customer, many difficulties may be 

encountered in the cloud-based incident response, e.g. security monitoring, evidence 

investigation and collection. 

2. Cloud-based DR/BCM 

DR/BCM is a requisite not only in the traditional IT infrastructure but also in the cloud 

environment. How to carry out proper DR/BCM drill on VMs shall be clearly conveyed. 

3. Cloud-based supply chain management 

Thank you! 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cao Kunpeng

 Cybersecurity

 Quality Dept./ Engineering & Service Operation Division

 ZTE Corporation
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS DATED MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          41,016
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,628,795
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  7,812,395
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            16,701,687
<PP&E>                                         573,628
<DEPRECIATION>                                  27,357
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              17,275,315
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       16,949,650
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         8,394
<OTHER-SE>                                       (835)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                17,275,315
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,378,044
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,549,864
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             419,254
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (591,074)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (591,074)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (591,074)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.07)
        

</TABLE>
#### Parker *v.*Vaughn.

Opinion delivered January 20, 1930.

*John M. Parker é Son,*for appellant.

*Hays, Pridcly <$> Por ex,*for appellee.

McHaney, J.

Appellant sued appellee in unlawful detainer, and in attachment for rent for the year 1928. There was a verdict and judgment on both canses of action for appellee for -$'27.85 on appellee’s cross-complaint. The facts, briefly stated, are substantially as follows: Appellant rented appellee her farm in Tell County for 1928, containing about 66 acres, under a written contract of lease providing* for payment of money rent of a stipulated sum per acre, on or before-October. 15, 1928. The lease farther provided that, if appellee *891complied with all the terms of the lease contract, and paid all ¿lis rent by November 1, he should have the option to rent the same property on the same terms for 1929.

In the spring of 1928, an overflow came, destroying a portion of the crops, and the parties mutually agreed to modify the contract, so as to provide for the payment of rents in a portion of the crops, instead of money rent. Appellee delivered to appellant her portion of the crops, as same were gathered, hut failed to completely harvest his crops by November 1. In December, he was notified to surrender and deliver up possession of the land on January 1, 1929, which he refused to do, on demand. This demand to quit was made on the ground that he had not paid all his rent by November 1, and that he was not, therefore, entitled to exercise his option to hold over for 1929.

The case depends almost entirely on a question of fact, and the facts were in dispute. The jury has settled this question against appellant. Had the jury accepted her testimony she would have been entitled to possession. They chose, however, to accept the testimony of appellee, as reflected in the verdict. This court is not at liberty -to set aside a verdict on a disputed question of fact, even though it should find it to be against the preponderance of the evidence.

Some considerable complaint is directed against the instructions given by the court, as well as those refused.

The record discloses that 23 instructions were given, a majority of which were at appellant’s request, and ten more requested 'by her were refused. We think the court fully instructed the jury as to the law, and that the instructions were as ¡favorable to her as she was entitled to. The court correctly told the jury that, if they found that the written contract was afterwards verbally modified so as to substitute a part of the crop for money rent, then the rent would be due as the crops were gathered, according to custom of the country. Of course if *892the crop was not gathered by November 1, the rent conld not be paid in kind by that time. We do not tiiink this ¿had the effect of destroying the option for 1929. We cannot take np and discuss each instruction, about which complaint is made, as it would take too much space and serve no useful purpose.

Judgment affirmed.