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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         334,941
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   17,140
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     43,930
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               402,012
<PP&E>                                       5,979,241
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,146,544
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,250,559
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          386,195
<BONDS>                                      1,105,038
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,759,326
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,250,559
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,427,276
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  646,693
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               434,266
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              67,615
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                278,702
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            278,702
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   278,702
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    46.45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    46.45
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 10.24

PREVIEW SYSTEMS, INC.
OFFICER RETENTION, SEVERANCE, AND ACCELERATED VESTING AGREEMENT

|Name:Patrick Reutens |  | Date: March 16, 2001
|-------------------- |  | --------------------

Preview
Systems wishes to provide you with an incentive to continue in the service of the Company through certain potential transactions and for a reasonable period of time
thereafter. If you wish to receive the benefits of the Retention Bonus and Severance Agreement, please sign the bottom of this letter indicating your acknowledgement and agreement to the terms
described in this letter, and return it to HR no later than 5:00 p.m. on March 23, 2001.

Retention Bonus Amount:

Lump sum payment equal to three months of your base salary plus 25% of your target bonus for this year, reduced by applicable withholding taxes.

Severance Amount:Lump sum payment equal to three months of your base salary plus 25% of your target bonus for this
year, reduced by applicable withholding taxes.

Accelerated Vesting:50% of unvested options or unvested stock subject to repurchase.

Conditions for Receipt of the Retention Bonus:You will receive the Retention Bonus if

One
of the following circumstances applies to you:



And
you meet each of the following conditions:



Conditions for Receipt of the Severance Amount:



And
you meet each of the following conditions:



---



Condition for Receipt of Accelerated Vesting:Termination of employment other than for cause, and you sign and return a
general release of claims.

|                           |  | Preview Systems, Inc.    
|-------------------------- |  | -------------------------
|                           |  | By:Title: President & CEO
|ACKNOWLEDGED AND ACCEPTED: |  |                          
|                           |  | Date:                    

---

QuickLinks
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 18

- 12721 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:16

- cr
- 00341

- MHC

- CMS

- 6

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus
FRANCO TEZA MENDEZ , Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgi a

________________________ (January 9, 2019)
Before MARTIN, ROSENBAUM , and NEWSOM , Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Case: 18-12721 Date Filed: 01/09/2019 Page: 1 of 22 Dennis C. O’Brien , appointed coun sel for Franco Teza Mendez in this direct

criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit on direct appeal , counsel’s motion to

withdraw is GRANTED , and Teza Mendez’s convictions and sentences are
AFFIRMED

. Case: 18-12721 Date Filed: 01/09/2019 Page: 2 of 2
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO****18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,****AS ADOPTED PURSUANTTO****SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report of Chemtura Corporation (the “Company”)on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2006 (the “Report”), I, KarenR. Osar, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 
|        | /S/ KAREN R. OSAR            |
|--------|------------------------------|
|   | Karen R. Osar                |
|   | Executive Vice President and |
|   | Chief Financial Officer      |
|   | March 8, 2007                |

 

Thiswritten statement accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes ofSection 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
#### Simpson Gray, Appellant, v City of New York et al., Respondents.

[872 NYS2d 7]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul G. Feinman, J.), entered April 7, 2008, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by plaintiff’s brief, denied his motion to compel defendants to answer his interrogatories, denied his motion for summary judgment on his breach of contract claim, and granted defendants’ cross motion for leave to amend their answer and dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Even assuming defendants’ cross motion was untimely, *449plaintiff was not prejudiced by the minimal delay. The court was within its discretion in considering the cross motion, especially where plaintiff did not request additional time to respond *(Gu-zetti v City of New York,*32 AD3d 234 [2006]).

Plaintiffs failure to include his notice of claim in his bankruptcy petition deprived him of the legal capacity to sue herein *(Whelan v Longo,*7 NY3d 821 [2006]), even if the omission was innocent *(see Dynamics Corp. of Am. v Marine Midland Bank-N.Y.,*69 NY2d 191 [1987]). In that regard, it makes no difference that plaintiff filed for bankruptcy under chapter 13 rather than chapter 7 *(see Cable v Ivy Tech State Coll.,*200 F3d 467, 472 [7th Cir 1999], citing Fed Rules Bankr Pro rule 6009).

Because we affirm the dismissal of the complaint, we do not reach plaintiffs argument that the court should have granted his motions for partial summary judgment and to compel discovery.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining argument and find it unavailing. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P, Saxe, Friedman, Acosta and DeGrasse, JJ. [See 19 Misc 3d 1117(A), 2008 NY Slip Op 50758(11).]
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-05-00732-CR

NO. 03-05-00733-CR

Hurbert William Washington, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 331ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NOS. D-1-DC-05-202231 & D-1-DC-05-202232

HONORABLE BOB PERKINS, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Hurbert Washington seeks to appeal from judgments of conviction for possession of

cocaine. The trial court has certified that these are plea bargain cases and Washington has no right of

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). In addition, the notices of appeal were filed more than thirty days

after imposition of sentence. See id. rule 26.2(a)(1). The appeals are dismissed. See id. rule 25.2(d).

__________________________________________

Bob Pemberton, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Pemberton and Waldrop

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: December 2, 2005

Do Not Publish
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

A pril 19 , 2019

t 04 16 

# Order

Clerk April 1 9 , 2019

156616

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 156616

COA: 338877

Berrien CC: 2015

- 005091

- FH

JOHN ANTONYA MOSS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On March 6, 2019, the Court heard oral argument on the application for leave to

appeal the August 21, 2017 order of the Court of Appeals. On order of the Court, the

application is again considered and, p ursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting

leav e to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on

leave granted . On remand, t he Court of Appeals shall specifically address whether a

family relation that arises from a legal adoption, see MCL 710.60(2 ) (“. . . After entry o f

the order of adoption, there is no distinction between the rights and duties of natural

progeny and adopted persons. . .”) (1) is effectively a “blood” relation

, as that term is

used in MCL 750.520b

– MCL 750.520e; or (2) is a relation by “affinity,” as that term is

used in MCL 750.520b

– MCL 750.520e, see Bliss v Caille Bros Co , 149 Mich 601, 608

(1907); People v Armstrong , 212 Mich App 121 (1995); People v Denmark , 74 Mich App

402 (1977).

We do not retain jurisdiction.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2144 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2144

 To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Independent 
 Agencies, Small Business Administration, Entrepreneurial Development 
                     Programs for fiscal year 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Small Business

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Independent 
 Agencies, Small Business Administration, Entrepreneurial Development 
                     Programs for fiscal year 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR INDEPENDENT 
              AGENCIES, SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, ENTREPRENEURIAL 
              DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Independent Agencies, 
Small Business Administration, Entrepreneurial Development Programs for 
fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $247,700,000.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1



Written Statement of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



The certification set forth below is being submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission solely for the purpose of complying with Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of
Title 18 of the United States Code. This certification is not deemed to be filed pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and does not constitute a part of the Annual Report on Form 10-K accompanying this statement.



The undersigned, the President and Chief Executive Officer and the Executive Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer of XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc. (Holdings), each hereby certifies that, to his knowledge on the date hereof:



|(a) | the Form 10-K of Holdings for the period ended December 31, 2004 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



| |  |  |  |                                                                                    
| |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | 
| |  |  |  | /s/    HUGH PANERO                                                                 
| |  |  |  | Hugh Panero President and Chief Executive
Officer March 4, 2005                    
| |  | 
| |  |  |  | /s/    JOSEPH EUTENEUER                                                            
| |  |  |  | Joseph Euteneuer Executive Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer March 4, 2005



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Holdings and will be retained by Holdings and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation byreference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 pertaining to the 1996 Long-Term Incentive Plan, the 1999 Long-Term Incentive Plan, the 1999 Equity Incentive Plan, the 1999 Employee Stock Purchase Plan and Form S-3 (No. 333-118241) of CharlotteRusse Holding, Inc., and the related Prospectus of our reports dated December 5, 2006, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Charlotte Russe Holding, Inc., Charlotte Russe Holding, Inc. management’sassessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Charlotte Russe Holding, Inc., included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year endedSeptember 30, 2006. 

/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP 

San Diego, California 

December 12, 2006
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN JUDGMENT RENDERED MA RCH 31, 2020 NO. 03 -18-00769- CR Kim berly Roming, Appellant v. T he State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 403RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTIC ES TRIANA AND SMITH AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE TRIANA This is an appeal from the judgment adjudicating guilt

re n dered by the trial court. Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the tr ial court’s judgment adjudicating guilt . Theref or e, th e Co ur t affirms th e trial co u r t’ s judgment adjudicating guilt . Becau se appellan t is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 248 (Monday, December 29, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 78081]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30327]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Combined Notice Of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural 
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP15-106-001.
    Applicants: Trailblazer Pipeline Company LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing per 154.203: Compliance to RP15-106 
to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 12/17/14.
    Accession Number: 20141217-5167.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/22/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-50-002.
    Applicants: American Midstream (AlaTenn), LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing per 154.203: AlaTenn OFO Filing to 
be effective 12/17/2014.
    Filed Date: 12/17/14.
    Accession Number: 20141217-5175
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/29/14.
    Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must 
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified 
comment date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by 
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing 
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying 
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 
(toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: December 18, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-30327 Filed 12-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                              5
<MULTIPLIER>                       1,000
       
<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                     MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                            90,903
<SECURITIES>                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                    178,571
<ALLOWANCES>                       4,402
<INVENTORY>                      176,874
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 450,846
<PP&E>                           354,425
<DEPRECIATION>                   216,066
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   688,051
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            122,503
<BONDS>                           40,273
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  0
<PREFERRED>                            0
<COMMON>                           1,027
<OTHER-SE>                       510,107
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     688,051
<SALES>                          439,886
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 439,886
<CGS>                            264,781
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    264,781
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  99,595
<LOSS-PROVISION>                     484
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 2,783
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   76,696
<INCOME-TAX>                      26,844
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               49,852
<DISCONTINUED>                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                        0
<CHANGES>                              0
<NET-INCOME>                      49,852
<EPS-PRIMARY>                       0.54
<EPS-DILUTED>                       0.54
<FN>
All share and per share amounts in this exhibit have been updated to reflect the
three-for-two stock split to stockholders of record on February 25, 1997 payable
March 11, 1997.  Prior financial data schedules have not been restated for the
March 11, 1997 stock split.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Michael COLLINS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-30625.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Sept. 28, 2006.

William P. Gibbens, Mark A. Miller, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of *450Louisiana, New Orleans, LA, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Robin Elise Schulberg, George Chaney, Jr., Federal Public Defender’s Office, Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

As both parties agree, Collins’s plea agreement precludes his present argument that the sentence imposed was unreasonable. *See United States v. Burns,*433 F.3d 442, 450 (5th Cir.2005).

DISMISSED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-51134 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus BRANDY MICHELE SHIPMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-98-CR-656-3

-------------------- October 19, 1999 Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Brandy Michele Shipman appeals her jury conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846. She argues that she was constructively denied the assistance of counsel at her sentencing hearing. The record is sufficiently developed to consider Shipman’s claim on direct appeal. See United States v. Scott , 159 F.3d 916, 924 (5th Cir. 1998). Shipman had counsel at the sentencing hearing who reasserted her objections to the Presentence Report, argued that she should be sentenced at theNo. 98-51134 -2- low end of the guideline range, that the district court recommend sending her to boot camp, and that she be allowed to remain on bond pending appeal. Therefore, Shipman was not constructively denied counsel at the sentencing hearing. See United States v. Cronic , 466 U.S. 648, 658-59 (1984).
AFFIRMED.