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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated condensed financial statements for the three-months ended August
31, 2000 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-2001
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-2000
<CASH>                                       4,456,597
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,718,723
<ALLOWANCES>                                   451,000
<INVENTORY>                                  1,363,846
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,316,962
<PP&E>                                       1,252,980
<DEPRECIATION>                               (652,176)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,227,710
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,478,558
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        56,339
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,162,896
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,227,710
<SALES>                                      5,244,659
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,244,659
<CGS>                                        1,311,956
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,311,956
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,887,957
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,427
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,042,319
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (358,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,400,319
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,400,319
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02


</TABLE>
#### R. K. Young *v.*W. P. Ingram et al.

Judicial Sales — Exhibit of Title — Warranty.

A petition for the sale of land under Ch. 86, It. S., relating to the sale of real estate of an infant married woman, must mate an exhibit of the title, a clause in the commissioner’s deed of the land warranting the title being unauthorized and ineffectual.

APPEAL PROM CUMBERLAND CIRCUIT COURT.

January 25, 1874.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

The clause warranting the title to the land purchased at the decretal sale was not only unauthorized by the judgment rendered, but not sanctioned by any rule of law or equity regulating such proceedings. The petition was filed under Chap. 86, Rev. Stat., regulating the sales of real estate of infants and married women. The title is required to be exhibited in the petition in order that the purchaser may know what he is buying; and the court rendering the judgment is restricted by the act from making any other warranty than as against those whose interest passes by the sale. The title was recorded and the purchaser should have examined for himself. There might be such a defect in the title as to authorize the chancellor to interfere in such case,, and particularly where the sale has not been fully consummated by the payment of the purchase money’and the execution of the deed. In this case the deed has been made and the money paid, and the attempt to recover damages upon *465a warranty made by the commissioner is but a mere nullity. The petion under which the land was sold does not even allege that the petitioners were the owners in fee simple of the property sold. The allegation is that the father and ancestor died seized of the land, with the title exhibited and filed.

*Winfrey, Sandige, for appellant.*

*Allen, for appellees.*

The chancellor only sold their interest, and had no power to make them liable on the warranty, if he had undertaken to do so by his judgment. Judgment affirmed.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 8, 2016

No. 04-16-00390-CV

Juan ROBLES,

Appellant

v.

Maria Milagros ROBLES,

Appellee

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 10-2084-CV

Honorable Dwight E. Peschel, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Phyllis Bush's notification of late reporter's record is hereby NOTED. Time is extended 

to September 2, 2016.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

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

court on this 8th day of August, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
* 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, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-40471 Summary Calendar

JAVIER CHAPA, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus DAVID STACKS, Individually and in his official capacity as Warden; RICHARD ALFORD, Individually and in his official capacity; ARMANDO ALANIZ, Individually and in his official capacity; CHARLES R CLARK, Individual Capacity; HAZEL KITCHEN, In her individual capacity; DENNIS CROWLEY, Lieutenant, Individual capacity, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 9:02-CV-241

-------------------- Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Javier Chapa, Texas prisoner # 904219, appeals the dismissal as frivolous and for failure to state a claim of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit against Warden David Stacks and five correctional officers alleging that they violated his due-process rights byNo. 03-40471 -2- placing him in administrative segregation for being a gang member. Chapa argues that he has a protectable interest in his custodial classification because there has been an atypical, significant deprivation. Although he alleges the existence of extraordinary circumstances, he has not shown any, and Chapa’s placement in administrative segregation, without more, does not constitute a deprivation of a constitutionally cognizable liberty interest.
See Lukin v. Scott , 71 F.3d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1995). Chapa also argues that the district court’s decision is not supported by evidence because he did not sign the self-admission form and that the district court erred in considering certain photographs. “Because [Chapa] relies on a legally nonexistent interest, any alleged due process or other constitutional violation arising from his classification is indisputably meritless.” Harper v. Showers , 174 F.3d 716, 719 (5th Cir. 1999). Finally, Chapa’s argument that the district court improperly denied him the opportunity to bring witnesses lacks merit. The district court sufficiently developed the facts. See Parker v. Carpenter , 978 F.2d 190, 192 & n.2 (5th Cir. 1993). The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. The district court’s dismissal of Chapa’s complaint counts as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v.
Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Chapa isNo. 03-40471 -3- cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes, he will no longer be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is detained or incarcerated in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
AFFIRMED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.
Order filed October 5, 2015. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-15-00652-CV

____________

LINDA M. SMITH, Appellant

V.

MARY DAVIS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 269th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2014-09413

ORDER

Appellant’s brief was filed on September 15, 2015. The court has 

determined that appellant has not properly presented this cause in the brief on file. 

Appellant failed to substantially comply with Rule 38 of the Texas Rules of 

Appellate Procedure. In particular, appellant has failed to provide “clear and 

concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities 

and to the record.” Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(i).
Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 38.9, the court orders appellant to rebrief. See 

Tex. R. App. P. 38.9. Appellant’s amended brief is due 30 days from the date of 

this order, and appellee’s responsive brief shall be due 30 days after appellant’s 

revised brief is filed. If appellant fails to file a brief on or before November 5,

2015, the appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 

42.3(b).

PER CURIAM
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4817 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4817

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To facilitate the resolution of a minor boundary encroachment on lands 
of the Union Pacific Railroad Company in Tipton, California, which were 
 originally conveyed by the United States as part of the right-of-way 
      granted for the construction of transcontinental railroads.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4817

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To facilitate the resolution of a minor boundary encroachment on lands 
of the Union Pacific Railroad Company in Tipton, California, which were 
 originally conveyed by the United States as part of the right-of-way 
      granted for the construction of transcontinental railroads.

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

SECTION 1. RELEASE OF UNITED STATES INTERESTS IN CERTAIN RAILROAD GRANT 
              LANDS IN TIPTON, CALIFORNIA.

    (a) Property Defined.--In this section, the term ``property'' means 
that portion of the existing building located at 615 North Burnett Road 
in Tipton, California, which encroaches upon land that, subject to a 
reversionary interest, was conveyed by the United States pursuant to 
the Act of July 27, 1866 (14 Stat. 292).
    (b) Release of Interests in Property.--There is hereby released, 
without consideration, all right, title, and interest of the United 
States in and to the surface portion of the property. The United States 
retains any subsurface mineral rights held by the United States as of 
the date of the enactment of this Act associated with the property.
    (c) Instrument of Release.--The Secretary of the Interior shall 
execute and file in the appropriate office a deed of release, amended 
deed, or other appropriate instrument effectuating the release of 
interests made by subsection (b).

            Passed the House of Representatives October 4, 2004.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### Highfill *v.*McMickle, Administrator.

Interest.—Statute.—Usury.—The interest law of March 9th, 1867, rendered valid contracts for interest at a greater rate than six per cent, made hefore its passage.

APPEAL from the Crawford Circuit Court.

Downey, J.

This was an action by' the appellee against the appellant on a promissory note executed by the defendant to the plaintiff’s intestate. The answer, as to all of the amount of the note over and above six hundred and ninety-five dollars and eighty-three and a half cents, set up the defence of usury. The alleged illegal interest was at the rate of ten per cent, ‘on notes which had been given prior to the 9th of March, 1867, the date of the present interest law, and included in the note sued upon. An able brief is submitted by counsel for the appellants, in which we are asked to re*271view and overrule the decisions of this court holding 'that that act renders valid contracts for interest at a greater rate than six per cent, made before its passage. *Pattison*v. *Jenkins,*33 Ind. 87; *Klingensmith*v. *Reed,*31 Ind. 389; *Sparks*v. *Clapper,*30 Ind. 204.

*S. K. Wolfe,*for appellant.

*A. J. Simpson,*for appellee.

But the question is not so clear as to justify us in this course.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs and two per. cent, damages.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sergio LLAMAS-RODAS, aka Arturo Rojas, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-10581.

D.C. No. CR-00-00037-ECR.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 14, *2001*
      *1*
      *.*

Decided May 30, 2001.

*569Before PREGERSON, FERNANDEZ, and WARD LAW, Circuit Judges.

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

MEMORANDUM2

Sergio Llamas-Rodas appeals the sentence imposed following- his guilty plea to one count of illegal entry of a deported alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Citing the principles announced in *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), Llamas-Rodas contends that he was deprived of his due process right to notice of the crime to which he was charged when the district court imposed a sentence based on a prior felony conviction that was neither pled in the indictment nor admitted during the plea hearing. This contention is foreclosed by *United States v. Pacheco-Zepeda,*234 F.3d 411 (9th Cir.2000), *cert. denied*— U.S. —, 121 S.Ct. 1503, — L.Ed.2d — (2001).

AFFIRMED.

. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

***URANIUM RESOURCES, INC.***

405 State Highway 121 Bypass, Building A, Suite 110, Lewisville,TX 75067

972.219.3330 Phone 972.219.3311 Fax

 

August 9,2010

 

Securitiesand Exchange Commission

4505th Street, N.W.

Washington,D.C. 20549

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I,Thomas H. Ehrlich, Vice President - Finance and Chief Financial Officer ofUranium Resources, Inc. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

(1)  TheQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended June 30,2010, which this certification accompanies fully complies with the requirementsof section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| */s/* Thomas H. Ehrlich                     | * * |
|---------------------------------------------|----------|
| Thomas  H. Ehrlich                          |     |
| Vice  President and Chief Financial Officer |     |
| August 9,  2010                        |     |

 

----
Summary of the 2006 Quality Distribution, Inc. Compensation Bonus Plan



 Exhibit 10.1 
  
 Summary of the Quality Distribution, Inc. Compensation Bonus Plan 
 for Fiscal Year 2006 
  
 Awards under the Quality Distribution, Inc. Compensation Bonus Plan for fiscal year 2006 will be based upon the earnings per share (“EPS”) performance of
Quality Distribution Inc. (“Quality”) for fiscal year 2006. 
  
 Awards
will be paid from an aggregate bonus pool equal to $2.1 million and will be distributed to non-represented employees based on job classification, subject to review by the CEO. Awards will be paid immediately following completion of the 2006 year-end
audited financial statements (or on another date as practical or as dictated by applicable regulation) to the extent EPS criteria are satisfied. 
  
 EPS and Bonus Percentage 
  
 Bonus percentage payouts range from zero to 200% of each employee’s target depending upon the EPS achieved. 
  
 Eligibility 
  
 Awards are subject to the following qualifications: 
  

	1.	An employee must be active, full-time (excluding temporary employees) or part-time, non-union employee on the date the payout is paid to be eligible to receive an award.


  

	2.	Subject to the preceding sentence, employees hired after January 1, 2006 will be eligible to receive prorated awards as follows: 

  

	 	a.	Employees hired after January 1, 2006 but prior to April 1, 2006 will receive 75% of the attained bonus. 

  

	 	b.	Employees hired on or after April 1, 2006 but before July 1, 2006 will receive 50% of the attained bonus. 

  

	 	c.	Employees hired on or after July 1, 2006 but before October 1, 2006 will receive 25% of the attained bonus. 

  

	 	d.	Employees hired on or after October 1 will not participate in the program. 

  

	3.	If an employee is in more than one job class during fiscal year 2006 (e.g. the employee is promoted) the percentage of bonus will be projected based on the actual time the employee
was in each job class. 

  
 Administration 

 
 The Senior Vice President of Administration, the Chief Executive Officer, and the Chief
Financial Officer will serve as the Committee responsible for the interpretation of the plan. Committee decisions interpreting the plan or determining awards will be final. Quality reserves the right to amend, modify, or terminate the plan at any
time.
Exhibit 32


                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT


I, John C. K. Hui, Chief Executive Officer of Vasomedical, Inc. (the "Company"),
certify,  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that:

     (1)  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the nine months
          ended  February  29,  2008  (the  "Report")  fully  complies  with the
          requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act
          of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
     (2)  the  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations
          of the Company.


Dated: April 14, 2008

                                        /s/ John C.K. Hui
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        John C.K. Hui
                                        Chief Executive Officer




I,  Tricia  Efstathiou,  Chief  Financial  Officer  of  Vasomedical,  Inc.  (the
"Company"),  certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

     (1)  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the nine months
          ended  February  29,  2008  (the  "Report")  fully  complies  with the
          requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act
          of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
     (2)  the  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations
          of the Company.


Dated: April 14, 2008

                                        /s/ Tricia Efstathiou
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Tricia Efstathiou
                                        Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 12
 
                         U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
 
                       RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
 
                             (DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                 YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                                                  -----------------------------------------------------
                                                                    1996       1995       1994      1993(1)     1992
                                                                  ---------  ---------  ---------  ---------  ---------
<S>                                                               <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>
Income before income taxes, extraordinary item and cumulative
  effect of change in accounting principles.....................  $   2,001  $   1,917  $   1,881  $     687  $   1,385
Interest expense (net of amounts capitalized)...................        414        386        331        374        401
Interest factor on rentals......................................         54         60         70         67         65
                                                                  ---------  ---------  ---------  ---------  ---------
Earnings........................................................  $   2,469  $   2,363  $   2,282  $   1,128  $   1,851
                                                                  ---------  ---------  ---------  ---------  ---------
                                                                  ---------  ---------  ---------  ---------  ---------
 
Interest expense................................................  $     445  $     426  $     367  $     374  $     401
Interest factor on rentals......................................         54         60         70         67         65
                                                                  ---------  ---------  ---------  ---------  ---------
Fixed charges...................................................  $     499  $     486  $     437  $     441  $     466
                                                                  ---------  ---------  ---------  ---------  ---------
                                                                  ---------  ---------  ---------  ---------  ---------
 
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges..............................       4.95       4.86       5.22       2.56       3.97
                                                                  ---------  ---------  ---------  ---------  ---------
                                                                  ---------  ---------  ---------  ---------  ---------
</TABLE>
 
------------------------
 
(1)  The 1993 ratio includes a one-time restructuring charge of $880. Excluding
    the restructuring charge, the ratio of earnings to fixed charges would have
    been 4.55.
 
(2)  The 1992 ratio is based on earnings before the cumulative effect of change
    in accounting principles which reduced net income by $1,724.
<PAGE>


                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in 1994 Employee Stock Purchase
Plan Registration Statement No. 33-79014 as amended by Post-Effective Amendment
No.5, 1997 Special Stock Option Plan Registration Statement No. 333-33439 as
amended by Post-Effective Amendment No.1, 1997 Incentive Stock Option Plan
Registration Statement No. 333-32455 as amended by Post-Effective Amendment
No.1, 1987 Special Stock Option Plan Registration Statement No. 333-29111, and
1987 Incentive Stock Option Plan Registration Statement No. 33-15017 as amended
by Post-Effective Amendment No.11, each on Form S-8, of our report dated April
26, 2002 appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Pierre Foods, Inc.
for the fiscal year ended March 2, 2002.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Cincinnati, Ohio
June 14, 2002
No. 87-1443.

#### Lonsdale et ux. *v.*Cagle et al.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.