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

<ARTICLE> 5
<CURRENCY> USD

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                     103,215,704
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,278,656
<ALLOWANCES>                                   483,973
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           111,730,634
<PP&E>                                       2,902,839
<DEPRECIATION>                                 170,891
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             114,782,918
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,941,191
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       192,502
<OTHER-SE>                                 109,649,225
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               114,782,918
<SALES>                                      6,746,092
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,746,092
<CGS>                                        1,488,220
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,488,220
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             7,055,606
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,215,734
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (582,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (582,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (582,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.03)


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
            SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as
Vice President, Corporate Controller and Chief Accounting Officer of BTU
International, Inc. (the "Company"), does hereby certify that to his knowledge:

      3)    the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
            ended October 3, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the
            requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
            Act of 1934; and

      4)    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company for the periods covered by the Report.

                                         /S/ Thomas P. Kealy
                                         -----------------------
                                         Thomas P. Kealy
                                         Vice President, Corporate Controller
                                         and Chief Accounting Officer (principal
                                         financial and accounting officer)

Dated: November 17, 2004
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States Court of Appeals
**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

EBATES PERFORMANCE MARKETING, INC., dba Rakuten Rewards, Appellant

v.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, Appellee

______________________

2024

- 1459

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2022

- 00890.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

O R D E R

Upon consideration of appellee’s motion to withdraw from the appeal and appellant ’s motion to voluntarily dismiss this appeal pursuant to Rule 42(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedur e,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT : Case: 24-1459 Document: 22 Page: 1 Filed: 07/11/2024EBATES PERFORMANCE MARKETING

, INC

. v. IBM 2

(1) The motions are granted to the extent that the appeal is dismissed.

( 2 ) Each side shall bear its own costs

.

July 11

, 202 4

Date F OR THE C OURT

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: July 11, 2024 Case: 24-1459 Document: 22 Page: 2 Filed: 07/11/2024
575 A.2d 970

#### CITY OF READING, a Municipal Corporation of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. J & S SPORTSWEAR, INC., Appellee.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued May 3, 1990.

Decided June 4, 1990.

*351Peter F. Cianci, First Asst. City Sol., with him, Jack A. Linton, City Sol., for appellant.

Paul J. Datte, Lipkin, Marshall, Bohorad & Adams, P.C., Pottsville, for appellee.

Before McGINLEY and SMITH, JJ., and BARRY, Senior Judge.

OPINION

BARRY, Senior Judge.

The City of Reading (City) appeals a final decree of the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County which exempted J & S Sportswear, Inc. (J & S) from the City’s business privilege tax.

J & S is a Pennsylvania corporation with facilities within the City’s geographical limits where apparel is produced. In 1975, the City enacted a business privilege tax by ordinance pursuant to the Local Tax Enabling Act (Act), Act of December 31, 1965, P.L. 1257, *as amended,*53 P.S. § 6901 et seq. Section 2 of that Act prohibits a local municipality from levying, assessing or collecting a tax on goods “manufactured” in the political subdivision. In 1986, the City filed an action for declaratory judgment seeking a declaration that J & S was not engaged in “manufacturing” in its operations within the City. J & S filed an answer in which it asked that the trial court declare that it was, in fact, a “manufacturer.” Testimony was taken and the court entered a decree nisi pursuant to an adjudication which declared that J & S was a “manufacturer” and, therefore, exempt from the City’s business privilege tax. The City *352sought post-trial relief which was denied pursuant to a second opinion. A final decree was entered and this appeal followed.

The City now argues, as it did in common pleas court, that J & S was not a “manufacturer.” As all of the arguments presented to us were made before the trial court and since all of those questions were ably disposed of by the Honorable Frederick Edenharter, Senior Judge specially presiding, we will affirm on the basis of his opinions. *City of Reading v. J & S Sportswear, Inc.,*D. & C.3d (1989).

ORDER

NOW, June 4, 1990, the final decree of the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County, dated November 15, 1989, at No. 5554 Equity 1986, is affirmed.

CRUMLISH, Jr., Former President Judge, did not participate in the decision in this case.

SMITH, J., dissents.
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

BRANDON MARQUIS PUGH *

(AIS # 254312), *

*

Petitioner, *

*

v. * CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-00588-WS-B

*

LOUIS BOYD, *

*

Respondent. *

JUDGMENT

It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that this action be ADOPTED as the 

opinion of this Court. It is ORDERED that Pugh’s habeas petition be DISMISSED as barred 

by the statute of limitations and that he is not entitled to a certificate of appealability, and 

consequently, is not entitled to appeal in forma pauperis.

DONE this 20th day of October, 2014.

s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE 

 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00588-WS-B Document 20 Filed 10/20/14 Page 1 of 1
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

HAN OK SONG, §

§ No. 08

- 13

- 00059

- CR

Appellant,

§ Appeal from the

V.

§ County Criminal Court No. 5

THE STATE OF TEXAS, of Denton County, Texas

Appellee. §

§ (TC# CR

- 2011

- 00259

- E)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the

judgment . We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2015.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE

, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.

Rivera, J. (Not Participating)
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24

- 1168

ALEKSANDR J. STOYANOV , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. HOWARD COUNTY, MARYLAND; CALVIN BALL, Howard County Executive; DEBORAH BARACCO, Executive Secretary, Individually and in her Official Capacity as the Head of the Animal Control Division; OFFICER S. FOX, Individually and in her Official Capacity as the Police Officer; OTHER UNKNOWN INDIVIDUALS, Individually and in their Official Capacity as Howard County e mployees participating in conspiracy , Defendants

- Appellees

.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. Julie R. Rubin , District Judge. ( 1:23

- cv - 00927

- JRR )

Submitted : July 30, 2024 Decided: August 1, 2024

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and HEYTENS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Aleksandr J. Stoyanov, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Lynn Adams, Erin Brady Purdy, HOWARD COUNTY OFFICE OF LAW, Ellicott City, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1168 Doc: 11 Filed: 08/01/2024 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Aleksandr J. Stoyanov appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss Stoyanov’s civil claims and denying Stoyanov’s motion for sanctions.
We have reviewed the record and conclude that Stoyanov failed to plausibly allege cognizable claims against Defendants

. See , e.g. , Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009) (holding that, t o survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff’s allegations must “state[] a plausible claim for relief” that “permit[s] the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct” based upon “its judicial experience and common sense” ) . Accordingly, we
affirm the district court’s dismissal order , albeit on alternate grounds

. * Stoyanov v. Howard Cnty., Md. , No. 1:23

- cv - 00927

- JRR (D. Md. Feb. 2, 2024). 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

* S ee Moore v. Frazier , 941 F.3d 717, 725 (4th Cir. 2019) ( recognizing this court’s authority to “affirm . . . on any ground apparent on the record”)

. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1168 Doc: 11 Filed: 08/01/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1676 

To allow expensing of amounts paid to move business property from China 

to the United States, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 21, 2023 

Mr. GREEN of Tennessee introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To allow expensing of amounts paid to move business property from China to the United States, and for other 

purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Bring American Com5 panies Home Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXPENSING OF AMOUNTS PAID TO MOVE BUSINESS 

7 PROPERTY FROM CHINA TO THE UNITED 

8 STATES. 

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Treasury (or 

10 the Secretary’s delegate) shall establish a program under 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1676 IH

1 which amounts paid by a United States person (as defined 

2 in section 7701(a)(30)) to move inventory and equipment 

3 and supplies used in a trade or business of the taxpayer 

4 from China to the United States are allowed as a deduc5 tion in the taxable year in which paid by the taxpayer. 

6 (b) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary of the Treasury 

7 (or the Secretary’s delegate) shall issue regulations under 

8 the program carried out under subsection (a) that restrict 

9 the amounts that may be expensed under such program 

10 to business moving expenses (within the meaning of the 

11 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and the regulations and 

12 guidance issued thereunder). 

13 (c) EXPENSING PAID FOR WITH TARIFFS COL14 LECTED FROM CHINA.— 

15 (1) ESTABLISHMENT OF TRUST FUND.—There 

16 is established in the Treasury of the United States 

17 a trust fund consisting of such amounts as are ap18 propriated to such trust fund under paragraph (2). 

19 (2) APPROPRIATIONS TO TRUST FUND.—There 

20 are hereby appropriated to such trust fund amounts 

21 equivalent to the tariffs collected by the United 

22 States on goods manufactured in China. 

23 (3) APPROPRIATIONS FROM TRUST FUND.— 

24 There are hereby appropriated from such trust fund 

25 to the General Fund of the Treasury amounts equivVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:33 Apr 01, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1676.IH H1676

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1676 IH

1 alent to the reduction in revenue to such General 

2 Fund by reason of subsection (a). 

3 (4) TIMING OF TRANSFERS, ETC.—Rules simi4 lar to the rules of section 9601 of the Internal Rev5 enue Code of 1986 shall apply with respect to appro6 priations to and from such trust fund under para7 graphs (2) and (3). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 10.21


 


AllDigital
Holdings, Inc.


 


Amended and
Restated


 


Board of Directors
Compensation Plan


 


(Effective
as of April 2, 2015)


 


Retainers


 


Each independent director
will receive the following upon initial appointment or election to the Board of Directors of AllDigital Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”):


 


		·	An option to purchase 50,000 shares of the Company’s common
stock, at an exercise price equal to the closing bid price on the date immediately prior to the appointment date; and vesting over
a period of 4 years, with 1/4th of the shares of the Company’s common stock underlying the options vesting on
the one year anniversary of the grant and 1/36th of the remaining options vesting over the succeeding three year period.
The options have a term of ten years.



 


Each independent director
serving on the Board of Directors of the Company will receive the following upon each annual anniversary of the date he or she
was initially appointed or elected date to the Board of Directors of the Company:


 


		·	An option to purchase 50,000 shares of the Company’s common
stock, at an exercise price equal to the closing bid price on the date immediately prior to the appointment date; and vesting over
a period of 4 years, with 1/4th of the shares of the Company’s common stock underlying the options vesting on
the one year anniversary of the grant and 1/36th of the remaining options vesting over the succeeding three year period.
The options have a term of ten years.



 


Meeting Expenses


 


The Company will reimburse
all directors for their reasonable and accountable expenses incurred in connection with attending Board of Directors and Committee
meetings.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 20

- 00549

- CV

HOA DAO v. HOMEOWNERS OF AMERICA MGA, INC.

On Appeal from the 151st District Court of Harris County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2019

- 60198

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed . The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion . Costs of the appeal are assessed against the party incurring the sa m e

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. August 12, 2021
In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

_____________________ _____

09-17-00379-CR

__________________________

_________________________________________________________________ 

On Appeal from the 221st District Court

of Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 17-01-00333-CR

_________________________________________________________________ 

ORDER

Appellant’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw supported by a brief

concluding that the instant appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 

738, 744 (1967). Appellant’s counsel certified that counsel provided copies of the 

motion and brief to Appellant, advised Appellant of Appellant’s right to examine 

the appellate record and file a pro se response, and supplied Appellant with a form 

motion for pro se access to the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 

313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

Caryn Lee Stucky, Appellant

V.

The State of Texas, Appellee
Appellant requested access to the appellate record with this Court. We 

hereby direct the clerk of the trial court to provide access to a paper copy of the 

reporter’s record and clerk’s record to appellant, and to provide written verification 

to this Court of the date and manner in which the appellate record was provided, on 

or before Monday, March 26, 2018. See id., 436 S.W.3d at 321-22.

ORDER ENTERED March 8, 2018.

 PER CURIAM

 

Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.
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

The undersigned, Kenneth A.
Shewer, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Annual Report on Form 10-K of World Monitor Trust II  Series E for the period January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2009, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Annual 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 Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Registrant.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |                                                                                                                                                 
|--------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Kenneth A. Shewer
|Name:                 |  | Kenneth A. Shewer                                                                                                                               
|Title:                |  | Co-Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) Kenmar Preferred Investments Corp., Managing Owner of World Monitor Trust II  Series E
|                      | 
|Date:                 |  | March 25, 2010
#### R. L. Garvin *v.*H. S. Showdy, Adm’r.

Final Judgment — Power to Change.

When, in a suit hy an administrator against heirs and creditors to settle an estate as insolvent, an issue is made between a creditor and the estate, which is referred to and reported by a master, who hears the evidence, and upon exceptions being filed to the report, it was heard and overruled by the court and judgment entered against the claimant, such judgment is final and the trial court has no power after the term of court ends to permit the creditor to withdraw his claim and then modify his judgment.

*143APPEAL PROM HART CIRCUIT COURT.

October 12, 1874.

*Bohannon & Carter, for appellant.*

*J. W. Garvin, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Peters :

It appears from the bill of exceptions and agreement of the parties that appellee, as administrator of P. G. Rowlete, deceased, had instituted a suit in the Hart Circuit Court against the heirs and creditors of said decedent, to settle the estate as insolvent. Appellant, on his petition filed in that suit, was made a defendant, and presented the same demand against decedent’s estate, upon which this action was brought, and sought judgment therefor. His claim, with others, was referred to the master to hear proof and to be reported on. After hearing the evidence, the master reported adverse to appellant’s claim, and he excepted to so much of the report as rejected his claim. At the May term, 1872, of the Hart Circuit Court, his exceptions were heard by the court and overruled. At the following November term of the court, he procured leave of the court to withdraw his claim for the purpose of prosecuting a suit at law on it against appellee, and the court at the same time so modified the injunction inhibiting the creditors of said intestate from prosecuting several suits for their respective demands, as to permit appellant to sue at law on his demand. These facts appear from the bill of exceptions and the agreement of the parties.

The first question for consideration is whether the order overruling appellant’s exceptions to the master’s report, and confirming the same, in a final order. The court certainly therein adjudged that appellant has failed to establish his claim, and the litigation between him and appellee as to that ¿matter was terminated; and1 that being the case, the power of the court over that order, being final in its character ceased at the expiration of the term at which it was made, and the permission given by the court to appellant to withdraw his claim and prosecute an action at law on it, could not deprive appellee of the right to rely upon the judgment rendered in the former suit between the same parties for the same cause of action, as a bar, and which as such must be availing.

Judgment *affirmed.*
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS**

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-106113, 333-75994, 333-61694) andthe Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-72430) of HealthExtras, Inc. of our report, dated February 4, 2004, relating to the consolidated financial statements of HealthExtras, Inc., which appears in this Form 10-K for the year endedDecember 31, 2003. We also consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated February 4, 2004, relating the financial statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K. 

 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

McLean, Virginia

March 15, 2004
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7048

GENERIA SCOTT,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

EARL BESHEARS, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE

STATE OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA98-1860-PJM)

Submitted: September 10, 1998 Decided: September 29, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Generia Scott, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Generia Scott seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Scott v. Bashears, No. CA-98-1860-PJM

(D. Md. June 19, 1998). 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