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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-28-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-27-1997
<CASH>                                          11,520
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,640
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (58)
<INVENTORY>                                      4,351
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                25,500
<PP&E>                                          19,630
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (6,405)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  57,184
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,248
<BONDS>                                         91,564
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            13
<OTHER-SE>                                    (56,271)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    57,184
<SALES>                                         31,061
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                31,061
<CGS>                                           18,816
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   18,816
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,295
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    18
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,178
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,987
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,175
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,812
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (1,002)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       810
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     5.94
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     5.94
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.2
**302 CERTIFICATION**
I, Robert P. Capps, certify that:
(1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of TeraForceTechnology Corporation; (2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; (3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; (4) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared; (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, asof the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter inthe case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
(5) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting whichare reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
Date: August 6, 2004                                              /s/ ROBERT P. CAPPS   Robert P. Capps   Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         739,880
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,389,238
<ALLOWANCES>                                    75,000
<INVENTORY>                                  3,692,801
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,827,937
<PP&E>                                      93,538,533
<DEPRECIATION>                              24,747,067
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              83,371,847
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       19,856,842
<BONDS>                                     18,750,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,641,062
<OTHER-SE>                                  50,747,513
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                83,371,847
<SALES>                                     26,389,859
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            26,389,859
<CGS>                                       25,679,801
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               25,679,801
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               457,461
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             442,599
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                204,613
<INCOME-TAX>                                    75,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   129,613
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>



                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with the Annual Report of Civitas BankGroup, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of
the undersigned certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to ss. 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 results of
         operations of the Company.




                                       /s/  Richard Herrington
                                       ------------------------------------
                                       Richard Herrington
                                       Chief Executive Officer
                                       March 30, 2004


                                       /s/ Andy LoCascio
                                       ------------------------------------
                                       Andy LoCascio
                                       Chief Financial Officer
                                       March 30, 2004
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.

April 25, 2019

t0418 

# Order

Clerk April 25, 2019

157770

JOSHUA ZACKS,

Plaintiff,

v SC: 157770

COA: 342274

Wayne CC: 16

- 000653

- NI

JEFF ZACKS, d/b/a UNLIMITED

INSTALLATIONS SERVICES,

Defendant,

and

1101 WASHINGTON, LLC,

Defendant/

Cross

- Plaintiff

- Appellant,

and

TOTAL OUTDOOR CORPORATION,

Defendant/

Cross

- Defendant

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 20, 2018 order

of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of

granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for

consideration as on leave granted.
The 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 19, 2014

No. 04-13-00191-CR

Cesar A. SALCEDO,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

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

Trial Court No. 11-1545-CR

William Old, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

The Court has considered the Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing En Banc, and the motion 

is DENIED.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

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

court on this 19th day of May, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
----

Exhibit 32.1 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

In condition with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Polydex Pharmaceuticals Limited (the "Company")for the fiscal quarter ended October 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, George G. Usher, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 as adoptedpursuant 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 theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

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

By /s/ George G. Usher              George G. Usher, Chief Executive Officer December 12, 2008 

A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained bythe Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staffupon request. 

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Patrick Barclay, Appellant.

[967 NYS2d 422]

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ingram, J.), dated February 10, 2011, which, after a hearing, designated him a level two sexually violent offender pursuant to Correction Law article 6-C.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court’s designation of the defendant as a level two sexually violent offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act *(see*Correction Law art 6-C [hereinafter SORA]) was supported by clear and convincing evidence *(see*Correction Law § 168-n [3]; *People v Pettigrew,*14 NY3d 406, 408 [2010]; *People v Mingo,*12 NY3d 563, 571 [2009]; *People v Atkinson,*65 AD3d 1112 [2009]; *People v Bright,*63 AD3d 1133 [2009]). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, in assessing him 15 points under risk factor 12, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in crediting, among other things, the case summary prepared by the Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders and the defendant’s Department of Corrections and Community Supervision records, rather than the defendant’s testimony to the contrary, in concluding that the People proved by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant refused sex-offender treatment several times over the course of his imprisonment, and that he never completed treatment while imprisoned *(see People v Murphy,*68 AD3d 832 [2009]; *People v Mercado,*55 AD3d 583 [2008]; *People v Palladino,*46 AD3d 864, 865 [2007]; *People v Mitchell,*300 AD2d 377, 377-378 [2002]). In addition, the People met their burden of adducing facts in support of the assessment of 10 points under risk factor 13 by clear and convincing evidence *(see*Correction Law § 168-n [3]).

*869Further, since the defendant failed to meet his threshold burden of establishing a “mitigating factor of a kind, or to a degree, that is otherwise not adequately taken into account by the guidelines” (SORA: Risk Assessment Guidelines and Commentary at 4 [2006]), the Supreme Court did not err in denying his request, in effect, for a downward departure to level one *(see People v Johnson,*11 NY3d 416, 421 [2008]; *People v Perez,*104 AD3d 746 [2013], *lv denied*21 NY3d 855 [2013]; *People v Wyatt,*89 AD3d 112, 128 [2011]).

The defendant’s remaining arguments, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, are unpreserved for appellate review, and, in any event, are without merit. Skelos, J.P., Dickerson, Austin and Cohen, JJ., concur.
#### Mati Salomon, Respondent, v Jaspal Singh et al., Defendants, and Hlatun Minswe et al., Appellants.

[963 NYS2d 37]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (George J. Silver, J.), entered April 9, 2012, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied the cross motion of defendants Hlatun Minswe and Maung Y. Mon for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs claims of serious injury under the “permanent consequential limitation of use” and “significant limitation of use” categories of Insurance Law § 5102 (d), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants established that plaintiff did not suffer a serious injury to his cervical spine by submitting the affirmed reports of their orthopedist and neurologist. Each physician examined plaintiff and found full range of motion in all planes *(see Bailey v Islam,*99 AD3d 633 [1st Dept 2012]; *Rosa v Mejia,*95 AD3d 402, 403 [1st Dept 2012]). In opposition, plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact by submitting an affirmed report of a radiologist who opined that an MRI of plaintiffs cervical spine taken shortly after the accident revealed a herniated disc, and affirmed medical reports finding that tests conducted, both shortly after the accident and recently, revealed limitations in cervical spine range of motion *(see Pindo v Lenis,*99 AD3d 586 [1st Dept 2012]).

On the issue of causation, defendants’ medical experts’ passing reference to medical conditions that plaintiff experienced several years prior to the subject accident did not meet defendants’ prima facie burden. The experts did not review any medical records related to plaintiffs prior treatment and expressed no opinion as to whether such conditions would “interrupt the chain of causation between the accident and claimed injury” *(Pommells v Perez,*4 NY3d 566, 572 [2005]; *see Bray v Rosas,*29 AD3d 422, 423-424 [1st Dept 2006]). Further, plaintiffs treating physician opined that the cervical injury was caused by the accident, based on plaintiffs lack of previous symptoms and the onset of pain after the accident *(see Perl v Meher,*18 NY3d 208, 219 [2011]).

Concur—Friedman, J.E, Sweeny, Renwick, Richter and Román, JJ.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 201 

To prohibit the provision of Federal funds to any State or local educational 

agency that denies or prevents participation in constitutionally protected 

prayer in schools, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 9, 2023 

Mr. ROUZER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To prohibit the provision of Federal funds to any State 

or local educational agency that denies or prevents participation in constitutionally protected prayer in schools, 

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 ‘‘Voluntary School Pray5 er Protection Act of 2023’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 201 IH

1 SEC. 2. FUNDING CONTINGENT ON RESPECT FOR CON2 STITUTIONALLY PROTECTED SCHOOL PRAY3 ER. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi5 sion of law, no funds made available through the Depart6 ment of Education shall be provided to any State or local 

7 educational agency that has a policy of denying, or that 

8 effectively prevents participation in, constitutionally pro9 tected prayer in public schools by individuals on a vol10 untary basis. 

11 (b) LIMITATION.—No person shall be required to par12 ticipate in prayer or influence the form or content of any 

13 constitutionally protected prayer in public schools. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
#### Doretha C. TAYLOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Luke GAINEY; Mr. Miller, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 06-6940.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Sept. 28, 2006.

Decided: Oct. 10, 2006.

*427Doretha C. Taylor, Appellant Pro se. Tommy Evans, Jr., South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole *&*Pardon Service, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appel-lees.

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Doretha C. Taylor appeals the district court’s order denying relief on her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Taylor that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Taylor failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. *Wright v. Collins,*766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); *see also Thomas v. Arn,*474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Taylor has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

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.

*AFFIRMED.*
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2076 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Executive Office 

of the President, Special Assistance to the President, Salaries and Expenses 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 Oversight and Accountability 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Executive Office of the President, Special Assistance to the 

President, Salaries and Expenses for fiscal year 2024. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

4 EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, SPE5 CIAL ASSISTANCE TO THE PRESIDENT, SALA6 RIES AND EXPENSES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

8 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail9 able for Executive Office of the President, Special AssistVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:45 Apr 18, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2076.IH H2076

DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2076 IH

1 ance to the President, Salaries and Expenses for fiscal 

2 year 2024 may not exceed $4,288,000. 

Æ 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with BILLS
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 28, 2009

d0921 

# Order

September 28, 2009

139025

MARCUS YONO, LIVINGSTON BUILDING COMPANY, L.L.C., and SUTTONS POINTE DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C., Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v SC: 139025 COA: 281268 Livingston CC: 07-022810-CA ERIC CARLSON and LEELANAU ENTERPRISE, INC., Defendants-Appellees.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 28, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.