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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                       195
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,606
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,157
<INVENTORY>                                      8,407
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                14,493
<PP&E>                                          11,203
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,194
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  28,889
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           25,498
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         37
<COMMON>                                           607
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,661
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    28,889
<SALES>                                          1,662
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,662
<CGS>                                            1,062
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,669
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,684
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (512)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,203)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         6
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,197)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (1,054)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,251)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.23)


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

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 Annual Report of Global Diversified Industries, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending April 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Adam
Debard, Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my
knowledge, 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

                                                 /S/ ADAM DEBARD
                                                 ---------------
                                                   Adam Debard

Principal Accounting Officer
August 16, 2004
## U NITED 

## S TATES 

## N AVY



## – M ARINE 

## C ORPS 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS

_________________________ No. 201 7 0 0 361

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Appellee

v.


### JEREMY R. HENDERSON Sergeant (E

- 5 ) , U.S. Marine Corps

Appellant

_________________________ Appea l from the United States Navy

- Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: Major Terrance J. Reese , USMC. Convening Authority: Commanding Officer, 2d Assault Amphibian

Battalion, 2d Marine Division, Camp Lejeune, NC

. Staff Judge Advocate’s Recommendation : Captain B etrand A. Pourteau , USMC. For Appellant: Captain William S. Laragy
, JAGC, USN.

For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq

.

_________________________ Decided 2 3 March 2018

_________________________ Before M ARKS , W OODARD , and G ERDING , Appellate Military Ju dges

_________________________ After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c)

.

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL Clerk of Court
The following cases in which the Court of Appeals issued published opinions have been appealed to

the Supreme Court:

1. KSS One, LLC

v. Henrico County, Virginia, et al.

Record No. 0294

- 22

- 2

Opinion rendered by Judge Raphael on

March 7, 2023

2

. Jaron Devontae Nottingham

v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Record No. 1006

- 21

- 1

Opinion rendered by Judge Huff on

March 21, 2023

3. William Ezell Taylor, Jr.

v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Record No. 0433

- 22

- 2

Opinion rendered by Judge Lorish on

March 28, 2023

4

. Keefe Butler

v. Martha Ann Thomas Stegmaier, etc., et al.

Record No. 0584

- 22

- 2

Opinion rendered by Judge Athey on

March 28, 2023

5. Edgar Alexander Diaz

- Urrutia

v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Record No. 0502

- 22

- 4

Opinion rendered by Judge Humphreys on

April 4, 2023

6. Travis Alexander Bland Henderson, s/k/a

Travis Alexander Bland

- Henderson

v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Record No. 1359

- 21

- 2

Opinion rendered by Judge Raphael on

April 11, 2023

7. United Services Automobile Association

v. Bruce A Estep

Record No. 0391

- 22

- 1

En banc opinion rendered by Chief Judge Decker on

April 11, 2023

8

. Clifton Haley Harper, Jr.v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Record No. 0453

- 22

- 4

Opinion rendered by Judge Humphreys on

April 11, 2023The following cases in which the Court of Appeals issued published opinions have been

disposed of by the Supreme Court:

1. Jacques Lamar Walker

v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Record No. 1211

- 20

- 4

Opinion rendered by Judge Russell

on April 5, 2022

Judgment of Court of Appeals affirmed by opinion rendered on June 1, 2023

(220378)

2

. Shemon Devonte Clayton

v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Record No. 1246

- 21

- 3

Opinion rendered by Judge AtLee

on September 13, 2022

Refused ( 220645 )

3

. Shemon Devonte Clayton, s/k/a, etc.

v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Record No. 1247

- 21

- 3

Opinion rendered by Judge AtLee

on September 13, 2022

Refused ( 220645)

4

. Diallo Olumnminji Turner

v. Commonwealth of Virginia

Record No. 1103

- 21

- 2

Opinion rendered by Judge Beales

on September 20, 2022

Refused ( 220673 )
#### John Maxey *v.*Commonwealth.

Criminal Law — Homicide—Malice.

If one kills another without cause the law implies malice; hut malice cannot be implied from every deliberate cruel act committed by one person against another, for if the killing is in sudden heat and passion, the crime is manslaughter and not murder. No malice can be implied where the killing, though intended, was done in sudden heat of passion.

APPEAL PROM BARREN CIRCUIT COURT.

December 11, 1874.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

Instruction No. 5, given at the instance of the attorney for the commonwealth, was misleading, and especially upon the facts appearing in the case. There was no eye witness to the killing, and the jury could not well determine the condition or attitude of the *252parties, the one to the other, at the time. If one kills another without cause, the law implies malice, and in every case of homicide unexplained, malice must be presumed to have existed in the breast of the guilty party; but malice cannot be implied from every deliberate cruel act committed by one person against another, however sudden, for if the killing is in sudden heat and passion, the crime is manslaughter, and not murder. The man intends to1 kill when he stabs in sudden heat of passion, and no malice is to be implied in such a case; and to embrace the legal proposition contained in instruction No: 5 to a jury, is calculated to impress the mind of the jury that every killing, under any circumstances, unless in self-defense, implies malice.

*Sims, Bowles & McQuown, for appellant.*

*W. H. Botts, for appellee.*

'Instruction No. 1, given at the instance of the defense, is more easily understood by a jury and needs no explanation. The legal mind can understand the legal import of instruction No. 5, but one not skilled in the law might conclude that instruction No. 5 was in conflict with instruction No. 1. Tha jury should have been told, also, that in their deliberations on the facts, if they believed beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty, and also doubted as to the degree of the offense, they must find him guilty of the lesser offense. The jurors, or some of them, under the instructions, may have doubted as to whether the offense was murder or manslaughter, and yet they were not told what their verdict should be in such a state of case. The court is required to give the law of the case. *Blair v. Commonwealth,*7 Bush 227.

For the reasons indicated the judgment of the court below is *reversed,*and the cause remanded with directions to award a new trial, and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
#### Landaner *v.*The State.

Record.—Evidence.—"Where, on appeal in a criminal action, the evidence is not in the record, the Supreme Court cannot determine that it did not sustain the decision of the court.

APPEAL from the Marion Criminal Circuit Court.

Pettit, J.

The indictment in this case is, in all legal aspects, the same as in the case of *Lehritter*v. *The State, ante,*p. 383; and on the authority of that, we hold that the indictment in this case is good, and that there was no error in overruling the motion to quash.

A motion in arrest of judgment was also properly overruled, because the indictment was good, and there is nothing appearing in the record for which the judgment ought to have been arrested. There was a motion for a new trial for the reasons:

*484
      *B. F. Brown*and *W. P. Adkinson,*for appellant,

y *C. Denny,*Attorney General, for the State.

“ 1. That the decision of the court is not sustained by the evidence.

. “2. That the decision of the court is contrary to law.” The evidence is not in the record, and we are, therefore, not able to see that it did not sustain the finding; nor are we able to see that the decision was contrary to law.

The judgment is affirmed, at the costs of the appellant.
Order entered May 1 3 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** No. 05 - 15 - 00483 - CV CITY OF DALLAS, Appellant V. NANCY BEGGS, Appellee On Appeal from the 298th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC - 11 - 14997 - M 

### O RDER W e GRANT appellant’s May 6, 2015 first unopposed motion for extension of time to file brief and ORDER the brief be filed no later than June 12, 2015

. /s/ CRAIG STODDART JUSTICE
<PAGE>
            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
                          (After Issuance of Stock)


                         REPLACEMENT FINANCIAL, INC.
            -----------------------------------------------------
                             Name of Corporation

     I, the undersigned President and Secretary of Replacement Financial,
Inc., do hereby certify:

     That the Board of Directors of Replacement Financial, Inc., at a meeting
duly convened, held on the 30th day of June, 2000, adopted a resolution to
amend the articles of incorporation as follows:

     Article I - is hereby amended as follows:

                                 ARTICLE I
                                   NAME

     The name of the corporation is TK Originals, Inc.


     I further certify that the number of shares of the corporation
outstanding and entitled to vote on an amendment to the Articles of
Incorporation is 23,000,000; that the said change(s) and amendment have been
consented to and approved by a majority vote of the stockholders holding at
least a majority of each class of stock outstanding and entitled to vote
thereon.

     This Certificate of Amendment shall be effective on August 14, 2000, or
upon filing of this Certificate of Amendment with the Nevada Secretary of
State, whichever is later.

                                          /s/ Tracy Hernandez
                                      -------------------------------------
                                      Tracy Hernandez, President and Secretary


State of Utah       )
                    ) ss.
County of Salt Lake )

     On the 12th day of July, 2000, personally appeared before me, a Notary
Public, Tracy Hernandez, who acknowledged that she executed the above
instrument.

S                                        /s/ Jannette Gardner
E                                     -------------------------------------
A                                      Notary Public
L


                                                                            27
IN THESUPREME COURT OF 

### PENNSYLVANIA In the Matter of 

### WILLIAM SPYROSPEROS PETITION FOR 

### REINSTATEMENT FROM 

### INACTIVE STATUS PER 

### CURIAM : No. 54 DB2017 (No. 39 RST 2017)

: 

### Attorney Registration No. 

### 203140

: (ErieCounty) 

## ORDER AND NOW, this 21st 

### day of June, 2017, the Report and 

### Recommendation of 

### Disciplinary Board 

### Member dated June 12, 2017, is 

### approved and it is 

### ORDERED that William Spyro Speros,who has been on Inactive Status, has never been 

### suspended or 

### disbarred, and has 

### demonstrated that he hasthe moral

### qualifications, competency and learning in law required for admission to 

### practice inthe 

### Commonwealth, shall be and is, hereby reinstated to active status as a 

### member ofthe Bar of this 

### Commonwealth. The 

### expenses incurred bythe Board in the 

### investigation and 

### processing of this matter shall bepaid bythe Petitioner.
#### THE STATE ex rel. YOUNG v. HAWES et al., Appellants.

In Banc,

November 3, 1903.

1. Officer: police captain: tentjke. The tenure of a captain under the police act of St. Louis is not four years, but indefinite, depending on the pleasure of the board.

2. -: appointment bt implication. There is no such, thing as reappointment by implication, under the laws of this State, of a police officer who holds over after his term expires, but if he is permitted to hold over at the expiration of his term it is at the pleasure of the appointing power.

Appeal from St' Louis City Circuit Court. — How. *D. D.*Fisher, Judge.

Eevebsed.

*394
      *C. W. Bates*and *Wm. F. Woerner*for appellants.

*A. A. Paxson*for respondent.

GANTT, J.

Mandamus for $975, for salary as captain, from October 17, 1895, to May 1, 1896. Peremptory writ was awarded as prayed and defendants appealed.

Relator was appointed a patrolman December 5, 1878, was promoted to sergeant March 4, 1884, was promoted to captain, December 2, 1889, and served as captain until dropped from the rolls on-October 17, 1895. His claim is that his appointment as captain on December 2, 1889, was for a term of four years, and at the end of that term, as he was not discharged, he was reappointed, by implication, for another term of four years. He is in error as to both premises. As captain he had no fixed term, and there is no such thing in this State as a reappointment by implication at or after the expiration of a fixed term. [State ex rel. Rife v. Hawes, reported at page 360 of this volume.] The judgment of the circuit court is erroneous, and it is reversed and the writ quashed.

All concur.
11720.

#### Hicks *v.*Pursley.

Broyles, C. J.

1. Under section 4 of the act of the General Assembly approved.August 20, 1918 (Ga. *L.*1918, p. 352), any justice of the peace or ex-officio justice of the peace issuing a peace warrant to be executed within the limits of the city of Atlanta is in contempt of the municipal court of Atlanta and may be punished therefor by that court.

*(а)*A peace warrant is included by the words “'warrant . . or writ of any kind or character.”

(б) This is a harsh statute and must be strictly construed. Under its provisions, before a justice of the peace can be adjudged guilty of contempt of the municipal court of Atlanta, it must affirmatively appear upon the hearing before that court, either from direct or circumstantial evidence, that when he issued the warrant, or other paper complained *35of, he issued it *for the purpose of, and imth the intention of,*its being executed within the City of Atlanta. The mere fact that is was so executed is not sufficient proof of this purpose and intent.

Decided December 15, 1920.

Certiorari; from Fulton superior court- — Judge Pendleton. May 27, 1920.

*J. Mallory Hunt,*for plaintiff in error.

*Branch & Howard, Bond*Almancl, contra.

*<e) No*question as to the validity or constitutionality of this act was raised in the trial court. Such a question therefore cannot be considered by this court.

2. Although the peace warrant in question was issued by the defendant justice of the peace and was subsequently executed within the limits of the City .of Atlanta, the record discloses no evidence which authorized the trial court to find that the justice issued the peace warrant for the purpose of, and with the intention of, its being executed within the City of Atlanta. On the contrary, the imdisputed evidence was that when the justice was issuing the warrant, the woman who swore it out told him that the defendant in the warrant, her husband, would probably be found hauling whisky on a road which was without the iimits of the City of Atlanta. It follows that the trial court erred in adjudging the justice of the peace guilty of a contempt of court and in imposing sentence upon him; and that the judge of the superior erred in overruling the certiorari.

*(a)*The judge of the superior court erred also in modifying the sentence imposed in the trial court, there being no law relating to the municipal court of Atlanta which confers such authority on the judge of the superior court. *Brown*v. *State,*149 *Ga.*816 (102 S. E. 449), 24 *Ga. App.*774 (102 S. E. 450).

*Judgment reversed.*

*Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.*
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-15-00111-CV

Azle Manor, Inc.

v.

Patty Patterson and Pamela Beavers, Individually and as Representatives of the Estate of Mary Ann Davis, Deceased §

§

§

§ From the 48th District Court

of Tarrant County (048-260807-12)

December 22, 2016

Opinion by Justice Dauphinot



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the tria l court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

It is further ordered that appellant Azle Manor, Inc. shall bear the costs of

this appeal, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _/s/ Lee Ann Daup hinot______

________ Justice Lee Ann Dauphinot
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 182 

To promote accountability and transparency in future executive orders. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 9, 2023 

Mr. MANN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To promote accountability and transparency in future 

executive orders. 

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

3 SECTION 1. NOTIFICATION RESPECTING CERTAIN EXECU4 TIVE ORDERS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 30 days before 

6 issuing a qualifying executive order, the President shall 

7 transmit to the Congress, and make publicly available, a 

8 notification with respect to such executive order. Such no9 tification shall contain— 

10 (1) the text of the executive order; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 182 IH

1 (2) the Federal law or laws affected by the ex2 ecutive order that is the subject of the notification; 

3 (3) how the President is working within the pa4 rameters specified in Federal law and the Constitu5 tion; 

6 (4) the means by which the executive order will 

7 be accomplished, including through any related Fed8 eral agencies or departments; and 

9 (5) a comprehensive list of organizations, busi10 nesses, and other parties or entities the President, 

11 or the President’s designee, engaged with prior to 

12 the issuance of such executive order. 

13 (b) REPORTS.—Not later than 6 months after the 

14 date of the enactment of this Act, and every 12 months 

15 thereafter, the President shall submit to the Congress a 

16 report on the outcome of each qualifying executive order 

17 issued during the period covered by the report. 

18 (c) QUALIFYING EXECUTIVE ORDER.—The term 

19 ‘‘qualifying executive order’’ means any executive order 

20 (including an executive order that revokes or nullifies a 

21 previous executive order) issued on or after the date of 

22 the enactment of this Act, relating to the right of law23 abiding individuals in the United States to own, carry, and 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 182 IH

1 use firearms, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment 

2 to the Constitution. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 99.1

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

In connection with the Annual Report of Foundry Networks, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Bobby
R. Johnson Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Timothy D.
Heffner, Chief Financial Officer, 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
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



|                                                                                     |  |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  |  | 
|/s/ Bobby
      R. Johnson, Jr.                                                      |  |  | 
|                                                                                     |  |  | 
|Bobby R.
      Johnson, Jr.Chief Executive Officer and
      PresidentMarch 31, 2003 |  |  | 



|                                                                                                                     |  |  | 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  |  | 
|/s/ Timothy D. Heffner                                                                                               |  |  | 
|                                                                                                                     |  |  | 
|Timothy D.
      HeffnerVice President, Finance
      andAdministration, Chief Financial
      OfficerMarch 31, 2003 |  |  | 

75

---