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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001049172
<NAME>                        nky*6vsa
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-02-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-04-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-04-1998
<CASH>                                           4,431
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,404
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     24,463
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                45,745
<PP&E>                                          28,283
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (4,854)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 174,049
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,500
<BONDS>                                        121,540
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      19,056
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   174,049
<SALES>                                         81,031
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                81,031
<CGS>                                           49,471
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   74,231
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,414
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    386
<INCOME-TAX>                                       189
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                197
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       197
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 89-3 Filed: 11/22/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:2520
4/19/2021 Tracking | UPS - United States

https://www.ups.com/track?loc=en_US&requester=ST/trackdetails 2/3

Shipment Progress 

Date Location

 Delivered 03/31/2021

12:51 P.M.

CUAUHTEMOC,

MX

 Ready for

Customer Pickup

03/08/2021 4:17 A.M. Mexico City,

Mexico

 Delivery

Attempted

03/01/2021 1:21 P.M. Mexico City,

Mexico

 Shipped 02/26/2021 6:34 P.M. Chicago, IL,

United States

 Label Created 03/01/2021 1:19 P.M. United States

Shipment Details 

Service

UPS Worldwide Express® (https://www.ups.com/content/us/en/shipping/time/service/express.html)

Weight

0.50 LBS

Show More

 Track

Track





Help 

Ask UPS

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 89-3 Filed: 11/22/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:2521
4/19/2021 Tracking | UPS - United States

https://www.ups.com/track?loc=en_US&requester=ST/trackdetails 3/3

Copyright ©1994- 2021 United Parcel Service of America, Inc. All rights reserved.

Ask UPS

Case: 1:20-cv-03758 Document #: 89-3 Filed: 11/22/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:2522
10010.

#### Martin *v.*The State.

Decided November 7, 1918.

Broyles, P. J.

1. There was no error in the admission of testimony complained of in the special ground of the motion for a new trial. The evidence was admissible for what it was worth.

2. The evidence in this ease, connecting the defendant with the whiskv found by the officer, while entirely circumstantial, was sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of the guilt of the accused; and the court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bloodworth and Harwell, JJ., concur.*

*14Accusation of misdemeanor; from city court of Floyd county— Judge Nunnally. July 15, 1918.

The accusation charged the defendant with having had in his possession, custody, and control intoxicating liquor. The only testimony was that of the sheriff, who testified that in a stable in which the defendant kept a jackass, where one Mullen lived, across the street from where the defendant lived,' he found a keg with six or sevén gallons and a quart-bottle of whisky, and several other bottles of whisky around the keg, 'in the jackass stall, in a trench which had been dug there; and he arrested Mullen and the defendant, and both of them denied knowledge of the whisky. He testified that Mullen “did not use the stable where the whisky was found.” Over the objection that it was irrelevant and tended to prejudice the jury against • the defendant, the court allowed the witness to testify as follows: “On a former occasion I saw Will Martin [the defendant] with a basket of shucks on his shoulder, carrying them over to that jackass. I came up behind him. He-looked around,, saw me, and said, ‘Why, Mr. Smith, you scared me. Don’t run upon me that way. You liked to have made me drop this basket.’ ” This is the testimony referred to in paragraph 1 of the decision. The defendant, in his. statement at the trial, said that the whisky found was not his whisky, and he did not know it was in the jackass stall; that the barn where the jackass was kept was on the place rented to Mullen by Mr. Harvey, and Mullen gave him permission to keep the jackass in the stall; that!he (the defendant) had nothing further to do with it; and that Mullen admitted, after his arrest, that the whisky belonged to him (Mullen), and that he (Mullen) put it there.

*J. W. Ewing,*for plaintiff in error.

*J. F, Kelly, solicitor;*contra.
Exhibit 13.1
 eLong, Inc.
 CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(B)  UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 Company Report
 (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 of the Company as of December 31, 2010 and results of operations of
the Company for the year ended December 31, 2010.
 /s/ Guangfu CuiName:
    Guangfu CuiTitle:
    Chief Executive OfficerDate:
    June 29, 2011
10326.

#### Page *v.*The State.

Bloodworth, J.

1. Where an indictment against two persons charges that the said persons, naming them, did “then and there unlawfully and with force and arms have, possess, and control certain alcoholic, spirituous, malt, and intoxicating liquors,” either one or both of them may be convicted, according as the evidence may show either one or both guilty. Having and possessing intoxicating liquor is not a joint offense, like riot, and the indictment in this case is “joint and several.”

2. When read in the light of the entire charge of the court there is no material error in the excerpts of which complaint is made in the motion for a new trial.

3. Even if it was-error to allow a witness to swear, “We had a seaich warrant to search Gene Page’s house for liquor,” the admission of this evidence could hardly have affected the jury and caused them to find a verdict of guilty, if without this evidence they would not have-done so. Moreover, evidence obtained by an illegal and unauthorized search is admissible against the defendant. *Calhoun*v. *State,*144 *Ga.*679 (87 S. E. 893). In addition, this ground of the motion states that when this testimony was objected to there was “no ruling by the court.” A failure to renew and insist upon the motion to reject the evidence will be considered as a waiver of the objection. *Lindsay*v. *State,*138 *Ga.*818 (7), 823 (76 S. E. 369), and eases cited; *Thurman*v. *State,*14 *Ga. App.*543 (2) (81 S. E. 396), and eases cited.

4. While the evidence in this case is rather weak, this court cannot say as a matter of law that the verdict is without evidence to support it. *549The verdict having been approved by the trial judge, under the repeated and uniform rulings of this court and of the Supreme Court a reviewing court is powerless to interfere. When the verdict is apparently decidedly against the weight of evidence, the trial judge has a wide . discretion as to granting or refusing a new trial; but whenever there is any evidence, however slight, to support a verdict which has been approved by the trial judge, this court is absolutely without authority to control the judgment of the trial court. *Bradham*v. *State,*21 *Ga. App.*510 (94 S. E. 618), and cit.

Decided April 12, 1919.

Indictment for misdemeanor; from Rabun superior court— Judge J. B. Jones. December 28, 1918.

*W. S. Paris, Thad. L. Bynum,*for plaintiff in error.

*Joseph G. Collins, solicitor-general, Robert McMillan,*contra.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.*
10124.

#### Neville *v.*The State.

Decided January 9, 1919.

Indictment for felony; from Wilkes superior court—Judge Walker. September 10, 1918.

Herbert Neville was found guilty under an indictment charging him with having distilled and made alcoholic, spirituous, and malt liquors. It was testified that a still was found on a branch about a hundred yards back of the house of his father; and he stated that he had helped his older brother to move it there, but that he had nothing further to do with it. Six barrels which had had whisky in them were found near the house, and bottles which had contained whisky were found “around there;” some vats which had been used to put malt in, to make beer with, were found “down the branch a little;” and at the corner of the garden *145was a barrel containing two bushels of wet corn, which was sour and was used for malt, and which had been there a week or ten days. “There was no complete liquor there.” There was a hole which áppeared to' have been dug for a furnace, but it was not completed. The still “had not been used in that place; they had just moved it there.” The defendant said it had been moved from across the river, which was the boundary between that county and another county. At the time these things were found by the witness the defendant’s mother said in the defendant’s presence that “the boys were making whisky because they didn’t want to make a crop, for they were going to war.” The defendant “did not deny it.” Ilis mother has two other boys, and one of them went to the war; one of them, it was testified, “was hiding.”

*144Stephens, J.

1, The verdict in this case, being without evidence to support it, cannot be allowed to stand.

2. In view of the above ruling it is unnecessary to pass upon the specific assignments of error.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Broyles, P. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.*

*145
      *Colley & Colley,*for plaintiff in error.

*R. C. Norman, solicilor-general,*contra.
9810.

#### Daniel *v.*Keen.

Decided November 23, 1918.

Appeal; from Laurens superior court—Judge Kent. May 7, 1918.

*Hal B. Wimberly,*for plaintiff.

*T. E. Hightower,*for defendant.

Bloodworth, J.

The motion for a new trial in this case is not in the record. However, the bill of exceptions, duly certified, recite^ that the motion for a new trial was submitted on the general grounds only. There is evidence to support the verdict, which has the approval of the trial judge, and this court can not interfere.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, P. J., concurs. Stephens, J., not presiding.*
**EXHIBIT      32.2**

|   |   | In                connection with the Annual Report of Vivid Learning Systems, Inc.                (the                “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2007 as                filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof                (the                “Report”), I, Robert M. Blodgett, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,                certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant                to                Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,                that: |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (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              respect, the financial condition and result of operations of the              Company. |
|-----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
**Exhibit 13.13**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 20-F of Inmarsat Launch Company Limited (the“Company”) for the annual period ended 31 December 2006 (the “Periodic Report”), I, Andrew Sukawaty, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge the Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in thePeriodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

 

Date: 27 April 2007
Dev IL Pack Components and Structure

Directory Structure

Note: "LANG" is a variable to be replaced by the 3-letter iso code for the incident language

README.txt

data/ 

 monolingual_text/ 

 translation/

 found/

 eng/

 ltf/ 

 psm/ 

 sentence_alignment/ 

 LANG/ 

 ltf/ 

 psm/ 

 comparable/

 eng/

 ltf/

 psm/ 

 clusters/ 

 LANG/ 

 ltf/ 

 psm/ 

docs/ 

 categoryII/ 

 categoryI_dictionary/ 

dtds/ 

tools/

 encoding/ 

 ltf2txt/ 

 twitter-processing/

Data Volumes

Monolingual text – 225Kw (45% NW, 33% DF/WL, 22% SN)

Parallel text – 300Kw (33% each NW, DF/WL, SN; can substitute 300Kw comparable for 100Kw parallel)

Parallel dictionary – 10K lemmas 

Other resources ("Category II") – 5 of 8 resource types: parallel IL - > non-English dictionary, monolingual 

IL dictionary, monolingual IL grammar book, parallel IL - > English grammar book, monolingual IL primer, 

monolingual IL gazetteer, parallel IL - > English gazetteer, English gazetteer for incident region

Note: Minimum target to be exceeded by 500% target for one of monolingual text, parallel text, or 

parallel dictionary

Documentation
The following items should be included in all dev IL docs/ directories:

• categoryI_dictionary/ – directory containing dictionary (or pointer to dictionary)

• categoryII/ – directory containing (pointers to) all category II resources

• source_codes.txt – 4 columns: genre, source code, source name, (base) url

• twitter_info.tab – 4 columns: file name, "network_id" (Tweet ID), md5sum, author_id

• urls.tab – list of all source docs with document urls
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

**Pursuant to Section 302of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002**

I, Harold C. Bevis,certify that:

1.     I havereviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Pliant Corporation;

2.     Based onmy knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

3.     Based onmy knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant asof, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)    Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;

(b)   Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

(c)    Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)    All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

(b)   Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
| Date: May 15, 2006 |                      |
|-------------------------|---------------------------|
|                    | /s/ HAROLD C. BEVIS       |
|                    | Harold C. Bevis           |
|                    | *Chief Executive Officer* |

 

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Antonio Savalas GODDARD, a/k/a Anthony S. Goddard, a/k/a Tony, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 04-7351.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 16, 2004.

Decided Dec. 22, 2004.

Antonio Savalas Goddard, Appellant pro se. James Ashford Metcalfe, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

*263Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM.

Antonio Savalas Goddard, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Goddard has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED*
H. Res. 7

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

January 7, 1997.

Resolved,

SECTION 1. CORRECTIONS CALENDAR OFFICE.

There is established in the House of Representatives an

office to be known as the Corrections Calendar Office, which

shall have the responsibility of assisting the Speaker in the

management of the Corrections Calendar under the Rules of

the House of Representatives. The Office shall have not more

than five employees—

(1) who shall be appointed by the Speaker, in consultation with the minority leader; and

(2) whose annual rate of pay shall be established by

the Speaker, but may not exceed 75 percent of the maximum annual rate under the general limitation specified

by the order of the Speaker in effect under section
2

•HRES 7

311(d) of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act,

1988 (2 U.S.C. 60a–2a).

Attest:

Clerk.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

EMOJI COMPANY GmbH, )

) Case No. 20-cv-3862

Plaintiff, ) 

)

) Judge Joan B. Gottschall

v. )

)

WUPENGFEI, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 

Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff EMOJI COMPANY 

GmbH, hereby dismisses with prejudice all causes of action in the complaint against the following 

Defendants identified in Schedule A. Each party shall bear its own attorney’s fees and costs.

No. Defendant 

65 danxiaoxiangny

68 daxueyuan

78 Exciting Little Farm

105 Lilonggang908906

137 qliuyun

143 spearnaily

209 LBchaoshen

The respective Defendants have not filed an answer to the complaint or a motion for summary 

judgment in this matter. Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) is 

appropriate.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: October 29, 2020 By: s/Michael A. Hierl _ 

Michael A. Hierl (Bar No. 3128021)

William B. Kalbac (Bar No. 6301771)

Hughes Socol Piers Resnick & Dym, Ltd.

Three First National Plaza

70 W. Madison Street, Suite 4000

Chicago, Illinois 60602

(312) 580-0100 Telephone

mhierl@hsplegal.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

EMOJI COMPANY GmbH

Case: 1:20-cv-03862 Document #: 61 Filed: 10/29/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:1706
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned attorney hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of 

Voluntary Dismissal was filed electronically with the Clerk of the Court and served on all counsel of 

record and interested parties via the CM/ECF system on October 29, 2020.

s/Michael A. Hierl

Case: 1:20-cv-03862 Document #: 61 Filed: 10/29/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:1707
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONFURNISHED PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Quarterly Report of Pliant Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Harold C. Bevis,Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, thatto the best of my knowledge:

(1)   The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)   The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company for and as of the end of the periods covered inthis Report.

|        | /s/ HAROLD  C. BEVIS      |
|--------|---------------------------|
|   | Harold C. Bevis           |
|   | *Chief Executive Officer* |
|   | May 15, 2006         |

 

----