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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                  1

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          258,207  
<SECURITIES>                                          0  
<RECEIVABLES>                                   194,016  
<ALLOWANCES>                                      7,000  
<INVENTORY>                                           0  
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                466,963  
<PP&E>                                       12,677,637  
<DEPRECIATION>                               10,820,080  
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                2,430,423  
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         1,198,072  
<BONDS>                                               0  
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0  
<COMMON>                                         25,039  
<OTHER-SE>                                      301,016  
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  2,430,423  
<SALES>                                               0  
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              5,441,809  
<CGS>                                                 0  
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         0  
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              5,992,916  
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0  
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    0  
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (551,107) 
<INCOME-TAX>                                    329,758  
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (880,865) 
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0  
<CHANGES>                                             0  
<NET-INCOME>                                   (880,865) 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (3.52) 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (3.52) 

                                          

</TABLE>
No. 16,405.

#### Gilchrist *v.*The State, for Use of Rhine, Drainage Commissioner.

Filed April 30, 1892.

From the Blackford Circuit Court.

*R. S. Gregory, A. C. Silverburg*and *J. N. Templer,*for appellant.

By the Court.

The questions in this case are the same as those decided in the case of *Racer*v. *State, etc., ante,*p. 393, and *Curry*v. *State, etc., ante,*p. 439, and upon the authority of those'cases the judgment is affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7156

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KEMUEL CORNELIUS MINGO,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, 

at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, Senior District Judge. (3:03-cr-00014-RLV-CH-1; 

3:12-cv-00235-RLV; 3:09-cv-00056-RLV)

Submitted: June 23, 2017 Decided: January 11, 2018

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kemuel Cornelius Mingo, Appellant Pro Se. Robert John Gleason, OFFICE OF THE 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy Elizabeth Ray, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Kemuel Cornelius Mingo sought relief from his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 2241, 2255 (2012), and through petitions for writ of error coram nobis and audita 

querela. The district court denied relief, and Mingo appeals. 

To the extent that Mingo seeks to appeal that portion of the district court’s order 

denying relief under § 2255, the order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the 

merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 

336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner 

must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the 

motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 

484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Mingo has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and 

dismiss this portion of the appeal. 

With respect to the remaining grounds for relief, we have reviewed the record and 

found no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.

United States v. Mingo, Nos. 3:03-cr-00014-RLV-CH-1; 3:12-cv-00235-RLV; 

3:09-cv-00056-RLV (W.D.N.C. May 30, 2013). 
3

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART;

DISMISSED IN PART
Exhibit
      32(a)


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 accompanying Annual Report of Alltel Corporation (the
      Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2007 as filed with
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Scott
      T.
      Ford, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to
      18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of
      2002, to the best of my knowledge, 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.








/s/
      Scott T.
      Ford


Scott
      T.
      Ford


Chief
      Executive Officer and President


March
      20,
      2008
















A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Alltel Corporation and will be retained by Alltel Corporation and furnished
      to
      the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Hubert Bachl

Cooperative Testing

Institute

Vienna, Austria

François Martzloff

National Institute of Standards

and Technology

Gaithersburg MD 20899 USA

f.martzloff@ieee.org

Doni Nastasi

Power Electronics Applications

Center

Knoxville TN 37932 USA

DNastasi@epri-peac.com

Reprinted, with permission, from

Proceedings, 12th International Zürich Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility, 1997

Significance:

Part 2 Development of standards – Reality checks

Investigations were conducted in the US as well as in Austria, on 120-v and 240-V incandescent lamps to determine

the levels of surges that can trigger an internal flashover of the hot filament, resulting in filament burnout. 

Repetitive surge application below the threshold do not result in premature failure of the lamp, but above the

threshold, a single application can trigger a fatal flashover. By combining measurement of currents and voltage

during the event with high-speed video recording, the mechanism has been clearly determined.

Depending on the characteristics of the surge (waveform, amplitude, and timing with respect with the powerfrequency sinewave), thresholds of failure range between 800 V and 2000 V. Very few bulbs survive surges above

2200 V. Therefore, the conclusion is inescapable: if such surges were occurring frequently – according to some

SPD advertizing claims – lamps would fail very promptly. We know they do not, ergo the alleged frequency of

occurrence is incorrect.
.
.
.
. - 582 -
.
.
#### Wm. Lawson, Etc., *v.*James M. Johnson and Wife.

Dower — Jurisdiction.

Under Civil Code Practice, § 549, County Courts have not only the right to assign dower, hut jurisdiction to determine the right of a petitioner for dower.

Judgment — Collateral Proceeding.

A judgment obtaine-d cannot be ignored in a collateral proceeding by those who were parties, to the action in which it was rendered and who petitioned for the relief granted.

APPEAL PROM CARRARD CIRCUIT COURT.

October 11, 1873.

*194
      *Hopper, Ditrharm & Jacobs, for appellants.*

*McKee, for appellees.*

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

The Garrard County Court had full po-wer.to determine whether or not the widow of Wm. H. Best, deceased, was entitled to dower in the real estate held by him at the time of his death.

Under the Civil Code of Practice codnty courts have not only the right to assign dower, but jurisdiction to determine as to' the right of the petitioner to dower. Sec. 549.

It will not do to say that the right of Best’s widow was not called in question, and therefore was not determined. The appellants were co-petitioners with her, and prevented enquiry by alleging in their petition that she was entitled to dower in such lands.

It is true they were infants at the time, but they had all been of age more than one year before the institution of this suit and have prosecuted no appeal from the judgment of the county court nor taken any steps to have it vacated or modified. Said judgment therefore remains in full force and effect. It certainly cannot be ignored in a collateral proceeding by those who were parties to the proceeding in which it was rendered, and who petitioned for the identical relief that was granted.

In this action it is neither alleged nor proved that the judgment in the county court was obtained by fraud, nor that the names of these appellants were used without authority. They do not repudiate anything that was done in the matter, but ask that a judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, obtained without fraud or covin and not the result of mistake, so' far as this record shows shall be disregarded.

The court below properly refused to do so.

Judgment affirmed.
<PAGE>   1


                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2



                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference in this registration statement on Form S-8 of WorldCom, Inc. of our
report dated February 14, 1996, on our audits of the consolidated financial
statements of MFS Communications Company, Inc. as of December 31, 1995 and 1994
and for each of the three and two years in the period ended December 31, 1995,
which reports are included in WorldCom, Inc.'s Current Report on Form 8-K/A
dated August 25, 1996 (as amended on November 4, 1996 and December 19, 1997).



PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Omaha, Nebraska
August 27, 1998
#### James Allen et al. *v.*Jas. H. Moore & Wife et al.

Deeds — Mental Capacity to Convey.

Tlie finding of a jury impaneled to inquire into tlie sanity of the grantor of land in the year 1869, that the grantor had sufiicient mental capacity to execute the conveyance, is entitled to great weight in determining his mental condition in the year 1868.

APPEAL FROM SCOTT CIRCUIT COURT.

March 20, 1874.

*596*Darnaby, Robinson, for appellants.*

*Buckner, Payne & Hunt, for appellees.*

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

The theory of appellants is that Hearne’s mind was so far enfeebled by old age and physical decay, as to render- him incapable of transacting business in 1868, when he conveyed to- Moore and wife. The finding of the jury impaneled to- inquire into the condition of his mind is conclusive as to his sanity in 1869, and is entitled to great weight in determining as to its condition a year before. It is not pretended that he was subject to attacks of insanity, nor that his health was more feeble in 1868 than it was during the following year. It seems to us that it is impossible, without disregarding the finding of the jury, to adjudge that appellants have established their right to relief. But independent of the action of the jury, the testimony rather preponderates against the theory of appellants.

There is an absolute failure to establish the charge of undue influence.

Judgment affirmed.
ACCEPTED 12-14-00219-CR TWELFTH COURT OF APPEAL S TYLER, TEXAS 1/23/2015 1:56:46 PM CATHY LUSK CLERK

FILED IN 12th COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 1/23/2015 1:56:46 PM CATHY S. LUSK Clerk

RECEIVED IN 12th COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 1/23/2015 1:56:46 PM CATHY S. LUSK Clerk
EXHIBIT
      32.1




CERTIFICATION
      FURNISHED 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 quarterly report of Patriot Scientific Corporation (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended August 31, 2005, as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission and to which this Certification
      is
      an exhibit (the “Report”), the undersigned officer of Patriot Scientific
      Corporation does hereby certify, pursuant to Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities
      and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title
      18
      of the United States Code 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:




(1) The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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: 
      November 7, 2006


/s/
                  David H. PohlDavid
                H. Pohl
              *Chief
                Executive Officer*
Exhibit 32.1

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 Siebert Financial Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the Report), I, Muriel F. Siebert, in my capacity as Chair, Chief
Executive Officer and President of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1) the Report
filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities and 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 for the period
covered by the report.

|                                              |                      
|--------------------------------------------- | ---------------------
|/s/ Muriel
 F. Siebert                        | Date: March
 31, 2009
|                                              |                      
|Muriel F.
 Siebert                            |                      
|Chair, Chief
 Executive Officer and President |                      

A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other documents
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by section 906, has been provided to Siebert Financial Corp. and will be
retained by Siebert Financial Corp. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
Exhibit
      32 .2








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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Imagenetix, Inc. (the
      "Company") for the period ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Lowell W.
      Giffhorn, 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, to the best of my knowledge:





|3) | the
              Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
              of
              the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------






|4) | the
              information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
              respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
              Company.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Dated:
              February 13, 2006
            By:
            /s/LOWELL
              W.
              GIFFHORNLowell
              W. GiffhornChief
              Financial Officer
Employment Agreement - Paul J. Komaromy



 Exhibit 10.8 
  

			
	

	  	 FastenTech, Inc.
  
 World Headquarters
 8500 Normandale Lake Blvd.
 Suite 1230
 Minneapolis, MN 55437


  

					
	Ronald B. Kalich	  	Telephone:	  	952.921.2090
	President and CEO	  	Corporate Fax:	  	952.921.2099
	 	  	Email:	  	ron.kalich@fastentech.com

  
 PRIVATE AND
CONFIDENTIAL 
  
 October 9, 2003

  
 Paul J. Komaromy 
 12040 E. Welsh Trail 
 Scottsdale, Arizona 85259 
  
 Dear Paul: 
  
 This letter confirms your
opportunity to accept the position of Executive Vice-President and Chief Operating Officer of FastenTech, Inc., reporting directly to me. 
  
 Your starting salary will be $300,000.00 per year, and will be reviewed annually. Your annual bonus potential will be 50% of salary, based upon corporate performance. You
will be given an opportunity to purchase 5756.1 Class A Common Shares (currently a .3% position in the common equity of the Company) and 4547.3 Class C 12% Junior Preferred Shares of FastenTech, Inc., on the same terms as the original
investors. In addition, in the next Award cycle, you will be granted an Option to purchase 5756.1 Class A Common Shares (currently a .3% position in the common equity of the Company) according to the terms and conditions of the FastenTech, Inc.
2001 Stock Incentive Plan. You will receive reimbursement for an approved Country Club membership and associated monthly dues and fees, as well as reimbursement for a leased vehicle, or alternatively, a monthly car allowance. In addition, you will
participate in any benefit programs that are made generally available to senior executives of the Company on the same terms and conditions as such other executives. 
  
 We anticipate the position can be adequately handled from your resident location in Scottsdale, AZ. If at some future time we mutually
determine that it would be more appropriate to office at the Corporate Office in Minneapolis, MN, you would receive a full relocation package. 
  
 In the event that your employment is terminated in the future for other than cause or your voluntary resignation, you would receive monthly payments of your salary in
effect at that time, plus reimbursement of medical insurance, for a period of twelve (12) months following such event. We anticipate your commencement date to be on or before January 1, 2004. 
  

			
		
	 Offered by:
	 	/s/    RONALD B. KALICH        
	 	 	 FastenTech, Inc.



  

			
		
	Accepted by:
#### J. S. VanWinkle *v.*A. J. Kayer et al.

Assignments — Obligee’s Liability to Assignee.

An obligee who has notice, oral or written, of the assignment of a claim, can not escape liability to the assignee, by payment of the amount of the claim to the assignor, or by purchasing debts against the assignor as set-offs against the claim.

Trial — Issues—Instruction.

An issue of fact not raised by the pleadings should not be submitted to the jury by instruction.

APPEAL PROM CLINTON CIRCUIT COURT.

March 17, 1874.

Opinion by

Judge Peters:

Instruction No. 2, given at the instance of appellee, is erroneous and prejudicial to appellant. By it the jury are told that if they believe that defendant paid off the $100 he agreed to pay Isaac Kayer, or that he bought or paid on debts of Isaac Kayer to that amount, without written notice of the alleged assignment, they ought to find for the defendant.

If Isaac Kayer had assigned his claim on appellee to appellant and his partner, and then had notified appellee of the assignment before he paid their assignor, or before he had bought any debts on him, whether such notice was by parol or by writing, he could not escape the responsibility to pay the assignees the amount he owed the assignor, by payment to him or by purchasing debts on him to be set off against the debt previously assigned.

Instruction No. 3, given on motion of appellee, was misleading and erroneous. The action was brought on a written agreement to pay appellant’s assignor $100, which he alleged was lost, and not upon a parol promise to pay the debt; nor did the verbal qualification cure the error. Whether or not the assignment of the debt to appellant was in writing, was not an issue of fact raised by the pleading, and should not have been submitted to the jury; and besides, the action having been brought upon a written obligation, although lost, the statutory, bar was fifteen years, and the date of the assignment could not be material.

*586
      *VanWinkle, Rodes, for appellant.*

*Winfrey-, for appellees.*

Wherefore for the errors suggested the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions for a new trial and for further proceedings consistent herewith.