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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                         54,384
<SECURITIES>                                   473,367
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,856,344
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               4,053,698
<PP&E>                                         3,578,697
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (22,537)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 7,616,386
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,606,556
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    850,000
<COMMON>                                       8,655
<OTHER-SE>                                     2,487,427
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   7,616,386
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,783,674
<CGS>                                          244,101
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,650,450
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               29,571
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               226,902
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             526,910
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (440,456)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (440,456)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.05)



</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**
I, Richard H. Lewis, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Prima EnergyCorporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary tomake the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered bythis quarterly report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this quarterly report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cashflows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisquarterly report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers 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 registrant and wehave:
 a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly reportis being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date ofthis quarterly report (the “Evaluation Date”); and  c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on ourevaluation as of the Evaluation Date;
5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent function):
 a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internalcontrols which could adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial data and have identifiedfor the registrant’s auditors any material weaknesses in internalcontrols; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrols; and
6. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have indicated in thisquarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internalcontrols or in other factors that could significantly affect internalcontrols subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, includingany corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses.
Date: May 10, 2004      By: /s/ Richard H. LewisRichard H. Lewis,President and Chief Executive Officer
24
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

JOHNNIE WHITE, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. CA 05-0243-BH-C

:

JO ANNE B. BARNHART,

Commissioner of Social Security, :

Defendant.

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the order entered on this date, it is hereby ORDERED,

ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security

denying plaintiff disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income be

affirmed.

DONE this 6th day of February, 2006.

 s/ W. B. Hand 

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00243-BH-C Document 22 Filed 02/06/06 Page 1 of 1
sentence unless the amendment is made to correct a sentence that was

based on untrue assumptions or mistakes that worked to the defendant's extreme detriment. Campbell v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 114 Nev. 410, 413, 957 P.2d 1141, 1142-43 (1998).

The district court conducted an evidentiary hearing on Boatwright's motion to correct an illegal sentence. The district court found, among other things, that the amended judgment was entered after Boatwright began to serve his sentence, it substantially increased Boatwright's sentence, and it was not made to correct a clerical error. The district court further found that the judgment was ambiguous and the amended information that it referenced was not determinative as to whether Boatwright was convicted of sexual assault or sexual assault of a child under 14 years of age. The district court concluded that the amended judgment was void because it was entered by a court that lacked jurisdiction and in violation of Boatwright's due process rights. The district court factual findings are not clearly wrong and we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by granting the motion to correct an illegal sentence. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

J. Hardesty

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2
(0) 1947A cM1.0

### cc: Hon. Janet J. Berry, District Judge Attorney General/Carson City Washoe County District Attorney Karla K. Butko Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 

### 3
(0) 1947A
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 3 (Tuesday, January 6, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 502-503]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30959]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. OR15-9-000]


Tapstone Midstream, LLC; Notice of Request for Temporary Waiver

    Take notice that on December 24, 2014, pursuant to Rule 202 of the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of

[[Page 503]]

Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.202 (2014), Tapstone Midstream, LLC 
(Tapstone) filed a request for a temporary waiver of sections 6 and 20 
of the Interstate Commerce Act and parts 341 and 357 of the 
Commission's regulations, all as more fully explained in the petition.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214 (2014)) on or before 
5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. 
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of 
that document on Tapstone.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#490f0c1b0a06272520272c1a3c3939263b3d092f2c3b2a672e263f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="aceae9feefe3c2c0c5c2c9ffd9dcdcc3ded8eccac9decf82cbc3da">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on January 9, 2015.

    Dated: December 30, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-30959 Filed 1-5-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**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, theundersigned, as chief executive officer of Charlotte Russe Holding, Inc. (the “Company”), does hereby certify that to the undersigned’s knowledge: 

 

1) the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 24, 2005 fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

 

2) the information contained in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 24, 2005 fairly presents,in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

 

Date: December 7, 2005 

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Charlotte Russe Holding, Inc. and will be retained by Charlotte Russe Holding, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2221 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Related Agencies, 

John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, Operations and Maintenance 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 Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Related Agencies, John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, Operations and Maintenance 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, 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 2221 IH

1 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

2 RELATED AGENCIES, JOHN F. KENNEDY CEN3 TER FOR THE PERFORMING ARTS, OPER4 ATIONS AND MAINTENANCE FOR FISCAL 

5 YEAR 2024. 

6 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

7 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail8 able for Related Agencies, John F. Kennedy Center for 

9 the Performing Arts, Operations and Maintenance for fis10 cal year 2024 may not exceed $24,490,000. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
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 Invenda Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the undersigneds knowledge:

(a) the Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;

and

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

Dated this 28th day of March, 2008



By:

/s/ Kamran AmjadiKamran AmjadiChief Executive Officer and Chairman
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: In re Daryl L. Davis

Appellate case number: 01-13-01032-CR

Trial court case number: 753744A

Trial court: 179th District Court of Harris County

It is ordered that the motion for rehearing is DENIED. Jurisdiction to grant postconviction habeas corpus relief on a final felony conviction rests exclusively with the Texas 

Court of Criminal Appeals. Board of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for 

the Eighth District, 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN.

art. 11.07 (West Supp. 2013).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Rebeca Huddle

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: March 13, 2014
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before 

any court except for the purpose of 

establishing the defense of res judicata, 

collateral estoppel, or the law of the 

case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:

CHRIS M. TEAGLE GREGORY F. ZOELLER

Muncie, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

RICHARD C. WEBSTER

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

ADAM J. SMITH, )

)

Appellant-Defendant, )

)

vs. ) No. 05A05-1301-CR-41

)

STATE OF INDIANA, )

)

Appellee-Plaintiff. )

APPEAL FROM THE BLACKFORD SUPERIOR COURT

The Honorable John Nicholas Barry, Judge

Cause No. 05D01-1109-FD-384

July 3, 2013

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

GARRARD, Senior Judge
2

As the result of a plea agreement Adam J. Smith pled guilty to theft, a class D 

felony. He was sentenced to three years with one year suspended. Later the court 

granted Smith’s motion for reduction or suspension of sentence, and Smith was placed on 

probation for the remainder of his sentence under the court’s rules of probation. Several 

months later the State filed a petition to revoke probation, and after a hearing the court 

revoked Smith’s probation and ordered that the entire portion of his sentence of 675 days, 

less 4 days’ credit time for a total of 671 days, be executed. Smith now appeals from the 

revocation.

Smith contends that his sentence should be revised in accordance with Indiana

Appellate Rule 7, to-wit: the sentence is “inappropriate in light of the nature of the 

offense and the character of the offender.” However, our supreme court has established 

that Indiana Appellate Rule 7 review is not applicable when reviewing a trial court’s 

action in a probation violation proceeding. Jones v. State, 885 N.E.2d 1286, 1290 (Ind. 

2008); Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 187-88 (Ind. 2007).

Instead, in such proceedings we only review for abuse of discretion. Prewitt, 878 

N.E.2d at 188. We will affirm the trial court unless its decision is clearly against the 

logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Guillen v. State, 829 

N.E.2d 142, 145 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied.

Applying that standard we find no error in the court’s decision. The court 

expressly found that Smith used marijuana during the period in violation of the rules of 

probation and, also, failed to comply with the terms of his court-ordered day reporting 
3

administered through Blackford County Community Corrections. The evidence produced 

at the hearing supports both of those findings. We cannot say the decision was clearly 

against the logic and effect of the circumstances. These were not simply very minor 

technical violations of the rules.

The decision is therefore affirmed.

BAKER, J., and BARNES, J., concur.
#### Roberto Cortes ALDANA; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-72650.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 17, 2007.*

Filed Dec. 21, 2007.

Roberto Cortes Aldana, Morro Bay, CA, pro se.

Maria De La Luz Cortes, Morro Bay, CA, pro se.

CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Julie M. Iversen, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div/Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: GOODWIN, REINHARDT and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying petitioners’ motion to reopen proceedings.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen because the motion to reopen was untimely and did not meet any of the regulatory *962exceptions. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), (3); *Rodriguez-Lariz v. INS,*282 F.3d 1218, 1222 (9th Cir.2002).

Accordingly, respondent’s unopposed motion for summary disposition is granted because the questions raised by this petition for review are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. *See United States v. Hooton,*693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam).

All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

JAMES R. FORRESTER , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 19

- 2477

[ July 2, 2020 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; John S. Kastrenakes , Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2017

- CF

010881

- AXXX

- MB

.
Antony P. Ryan, Regional Counsel, and Richard G. Bartmon, Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel, Fourth District, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Marc B. Hernandez, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed

.

W ARNER , G ROSS and G ERBER , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**STATMON
      TECHNOLOGIES CORP.**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**19
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Statmon Technologies Corp. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
      Geoffrey Talbot, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to 18
      U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      that to the best of my knowledge:




(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/ Geoffrey P. Talbot**
              
              **Geoffrey
                P. Talbot**
              **Chief
                Executive Officer**
              **August
                  14, 2006**




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to Statmon Technologies Corp. and will be
      retained by Statmon Technologies Corp. and furnished to the Securities and
      Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1732 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1732

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from gross income 
       the basic needs allowance of members of the Armed Forces.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 22, 2023

  Mr. Womack (for himself, Mr. Kildee, Mr. Wenstrup, Mr. Lamborn, Mr. 
   Wittman, and Mr. Gaetz) introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from gross income 
       the basic needs allowance of members of the Armed Forces.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``BNA Fairness Act''.

SEC. 2. EXCLUSION FROM GROSS INCOME OF THE BASIC NEEDS ALLOWANCE OF 
              MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES.

    (a) In General.--Section 134(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(7) Basic needs allowance.--The term `qualified military 
        benefit' includes the basic needs allowance under section 402b 
        of title 37, United States Code (as in effect at the time of 
        the provision of such allowance).''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 134(b)(3) of such Code is 
amended by striking ``as provided in subparagraphs (B) and (C) and 
paragraphs (4) and (5)'' and inserting ``as otherwise provided in this 
subsection''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years ending after the date of the enactment of this 
Act.
                                 <all>
```