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>               Nov-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                  Dec-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    Feb-28-1998
<CASH>                                   25 
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                          1560
<ALLOWANCES>                              0
<INVENTORY>                            3732
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       5468
<PP&E>                                 1136
<DEPRECIATION>                          542
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         6210
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  3867
<BONDS>                                   0
<COMMON>                                131
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<OTHER-SE>                             2212
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           6210
<SALES>                                2070
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       2070
<CGS>                                  1510
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           968       
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       34
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        (425)
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                           (425)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                          (.05)
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 21

                      SUBSIDIARIES OF HOMESERVICES.COM INC.

       COMPANY NAME                           STATE OR OTHER JURISDICTION OF
                                               INCORPORATION OR ORGANIZATION

Arizona Home Services, LLC                             Arizona
CBS Brokerage Systems, Inc.                            Nebraska
CBS HOME Real Estate Company                           Nebraska
Cendant Home Funding - Nebraska LLC                    Delaware
Champion Realty, Inc.                                  Maryland
Chancellor Mortgage Services, Inc.                     Maryland
Chancellor Title Services, Inc.                        Maryland
Edina Corporate Services, Inc.                         Minnesota
Edina Financial Services, Inc.                         Minnesota
Edina Realty Foundation                                Minnesota
Edina Realty, Inc.                                     Minnesota
Edina Realty Insurance Agency, Inc.                    Minnesota
Edina Realty Mortgage, Inc.                            Minnesota
Edina Realty Mortgage, LLC                             Delaware
Edina Realty of Wisconsin, Inc.                        Wisconsin
Edina Realty Title, Inc.                               Minnesota
First Realty, Ltd.                                     Iowa
IMO Co., Inc.                                          Missouri
Iowa Realty Co., Inc.                                  Iowa
Iowa Realty Insurance Agency, Inc.                     Iowa
Iowa Title Company                                     Iowa
J.C. Nichols Alliance, Inc.                            Kansas
J.C. Nichols Residential, Inc.                         Iowa
J.C. Nichols Residential Peculiar, LLC                 Missouri
Kansas City Title Services LLC                         Missouri
Leasing Associates, Inc.                               Nebraska
MidAmerican Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc.      Kansas
MidAmerican Home Services Mortgage, LLC                Delaware
Midland Escrow Services, Inc.                          Iowa
MRSCT, Inc.                                            Kentucky
Nebraska Land Title and Abstract Co.                   Nebraska
Paul Semonin Company                                   Kentucky
Plaza Financial Services, L.L.C.                       Kansas
Plaza Mortgage Services, L.L.C.                        Kansas
Professional Referral Organization Inc.                Maryland
Real Estate Referral Network, Inc.                     Nebraska
RHL Referral Company, LLC                              Arizona
Roy H. Long Realty Co., Inc.                           Arizona
Select Relocation Services, Inc.                       Nebraska
Semonin Mortgage Services, Inc.                        Kentucky
The Referral Co.                                       Iowa
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Ultrak, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Chris Sharng, Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(a)  This Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Chris Sharng
---------------------------
Chris Sharng
Chief Financial Officer
November 22, 2002
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7153

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LLOYD GEORGE MAXWELL, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-93-262) Submitted: February 22, 2000 Decided: April 3, 2000 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lloyd George Maxwell, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas More Hollenhorst, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Lloyd George Maxwell appeals the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (1994). Review of Maxwell’s petition reveals that it is more appropriately characterized as a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999) motion. Because Maxwell has already filed at least one § 2255 motion, he may not fileanother without first obtaining leave from this Court. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of Maxwell’s motion on this alternative ground, and modify the judgment to reflect that the denial is without prejudice to Maxwell’s right to move this court for leave to file a successive § 2255 motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244 (West Supp. 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED
#### Charles Kessler, Respondent, v Freda Kessler, Appellant.

[977 NYS2d 251]

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Connolly, J.), dated May 4, 2011, (2) an order of the same court entered June 23, 2011, and (3) an order of the same court entered August 31, 2011, which, after a hearing, directed the defendant to pay the plaintiff attorney’s fees in the sum of $140,720.50.

Ordered that the appeals from the order dated May 4, 2011, and the order entered June 23, 2011, respectively, are dismissed as abandoned; and it is further,

*895Ordered that the order entered August 31, 2011, is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.

The Supreme Court is vested with the discretion to make an award of attorney’s fees, after considering the respective financial circumstances of the parties and all the other circumstances of the case *(see DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete,*70 NY2d 879 [1987]; see *also O’Shea v O’Shea,*93 NY2d 187 [1999]). “An appropriate award of attorney’s fees should take into account the parties’ ability to pay, the nature and extent of the services rendered, the complexity of the issues involved, and the reasonableness of the fees under all of the circumstances” *(Grumet v Grumet,*37 AD3d 534, 536 [2007]).

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in determining that the plaintiff was entitled to an award of attorney’s fees from the defendant. Moreover, the award of $140,720.50, representing half of the attorney’s fees the plaintiff incurred, was appropriate.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.E, Skelos, Baltin and Roman, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

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 Sycamore Networks, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending July 31, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Daniel E. Smith, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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, as of, and for the periods presented in the Report.



|                                                                        
|------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                        
|/S/    DANIEL E. SMITH                                                  
|Daniel E. Smith President and Chief Executive Officer September 26, 2008
EXHIBIT 32.1








CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF


THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








The
certification set forth below is hereby made solely for the purpose of
satisfying the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and
may not be relied upon or used for any other purposes.





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Access Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jeffrey
B. Davis, Chief Executive Officer certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 results
of operations of the Company.





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 the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.





Signed at
the City of Dallas, in the State of Texas, this 12th day of August,
2009.





/s/ Jeffrey B. Davis


Jeffrey
B. Davis


Chief
Executive Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pete PENA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-40866

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 25, 2006.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Reynaldo Alejandro Pena, The Law Offices of Pena & Pena, Corpus Christi, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Pete Pena, Bastrop, TX, pro se.

Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Counsel appointed for Pete Pena has filed a motion for leave to withdraw and *604briefs as required by *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Pena has not filed a response. Our independent review of counsel’s briefs and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
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

The certification set forth below is hereby made solely for the
purpose of satisfying the requirements of Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and may not be relied upon or used
for any other purposes.

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Access
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the
period ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Stephen B. Thompson, Chief Financial Officer certify pursuant to
18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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.

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 the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.

Signed at the City of  Dallas, in the State of Texas, this 10th
day of May, 2005.

/s/ Stephen B. Thompson
-----------------------
Stephen B. Thompson
Chief Financial Officer
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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB (the "Report") of Colorado Wyoming Reserve Company (the "Company") for the quarter ended September 30, 2003, I, Rafiq A. Sayed,, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 best of the undersigned's knowledge and belief:

(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.



Date:  June 29, 2005

/s/ Rafiq A. Sayed



Rafiq A. Sayed



Chief Financial Officer
ex10-2.htm


Exhibit 10.2




SECOND ADDENDUM


TO


SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT / DEBT SETTLEMENT


 


THIS ADDENDUM is made the 7th of October, 2014.


 


BETWEEN:


 


DSG TAG SYSTEMS INC. (the 'Company")


 


AND:


 


WESTERGAARD HOLDINGS LTD. (the "Subscriber")


 


WHEREAS the Parties entered in to a Subscription and Debt Settlement Agreement dated September 26, 2014 (the “Agreement") whereby the Subscriber agreed to convert (i) the principal portion of the Indebtedness owed to it by the Company into Series A Convertible Preferred Shares (the "Series A Shares") in the capital stock of the Company at a deemed price ofUS$1.25 per Series A Share, and (ii) the outstanding accrued interest portion of the Indebtedness into shares of common stock (the "Common Shares") in the capital stock of the Company at a deemed price of US$0.25 per Common Share,


 


AND WHEREAS the Parties have agreed to amend the Agreement to reflect the calculated amount of the “Principal Amount" as defined in section 1.2 by adding thereto the costs incurred by the Subscriber in discharging the receiver formerly in place with respect to the Company; and in negotiating and settling the terms of the Agreement.


 


NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSES that in consideration of the sum of one Dollar ($1.00) now paid by each party hereto to the other and other good and valuable consideration (the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged), the parties hereto agree as follows:


 



	
1.  

	
All capitalized words and phrases used herein, unless otherwise defined, have the meanings ascribed thereto in the Agreement.







 



	
2.  

	
Section 1.2(a) of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:







 


'Principal Amount" means the sum of US$5,386,730.50, being the outstanding principal amount of the Indebtedness as of the date of the Agreement together with all amounts paid by the Subscriber toward the actual costs incurred in (i) discharging the receiver in place with respect to the Company; and (ii) negotiating and settling the terms of the Agreement and transactions involving the Company and Pubco;"


 


3. Section 2.1 (a) of the Agreement is amended by deleting the reference therein to "US$7,602,711.75" and replacing it with "US$7,888,898.73".


 


4. The Parties acknowledge that the number of Series A Shares subscribed for by the Subscriber pursuant to section 1.1 of the Agreement is increased proportionately to the increased Principal Amount.


 


5. In all other regards, the Agreement remains unamended and in full force and effect.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have duly executed this Addendum as of the date first above written.


 



	
DSG TAG SYSTEMS INC

	
WESTERGAARD HOLDINGS INC


	
by its authorized signatory:

	
by its authorized signatory:


	  	  
	  	  
	  	  
	
/s/ Robert Silzer               

	
/s/ Keith Westergaard               


	
President and Chief Executive Officer

	
President
*Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstancesset forth in LocalRule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-30759

Summary Calendar

 

In the matter of:

GREGORY J. AVERY and KATHLEEN R. AVERY

Debtors

GREGORY J. AVERY and KATHLEEN R. AVERY

Appellants,

versus

JEAN O. TURNER

Appellee.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Louisiana

(95-CV-1823)

 

February 17, 1997

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Gregory and Kathleen Avery appeal the Bankruptcy Court’s grant of partial summary

judgment in favor of the Trustee, Jean Turner, for monies received by Gregory Avery as a result of

the pre-petition agreement dissolving his law partnership with Ray Orrill. The Averys claim that the
2

bankruptcy court violated the mandate of our previous opinion, Turner v. Avery, 947 F.2d 772 (5th

Cir. 1991), by granting summary judgment on the trustee’s claims for all the monies due Avery from

Orrill on cases assigned to Orrill in the partnership dissolution agreement. In a thorough and able

opinion, the district court affirmed the bankruptcy court. We are persuaded that the district court

reached the correct result for the right reasons. Our prior opinion did not address those cases handled

by Orrill or the fees they generated, and it did not vacat e findings of fact made by the bankruptcy

court. The bankruptcy court correctly decided that funds received by Avery on a pre-petition

agreement on which Avery performed no personal services after the petition date is properly made

part of the bankruptcy estate. The same is true of residual partnership funds that resulted from the

dissolution of the law partnership.

The Avery’s also ask for a new trial. Our review of the record reveals no error or abuse of

discretion by the bankruptcy court’s refusal to grant appellant’s motion for a new trial on the basis

of inadvertence and excusable neglect.

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 22

- 00120

- CV

IN RE MARCIE LYNN DUTSCHMANN SCHRECK

From the 414th District Court McLennan County, Texas Trial Court No. 2021

- 3814

- 5

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In her petition for writ of mandamus filed on April 26, 2022, relator, Marcie Lynn
Dutschmann Schreck, seeks to compel certain actions by the Honorable Vicki L. Menard,
Judge of the 414th District Court, and McLennan County District Clerk Jon R. Gimble.

A fter review, we deny relator’s April 26, 2022 petition for writ of mandamus as to Judge

Menard. 1

1 In light of our disposition of this proceeding , the Court withdraws its request for a response. Furthermore, all pending motions are dismissed as moot.In re Schreck Page 2

With regard to the district clerk, we dismiss relator’s April 26, 2022 petition for

writ of mandamus. See In re Smith , 263 S.W.3d 93, 95 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.]
2006, orig. proceeding) (noting that appellate courts do not have jurisdiction to issue a
writ of mandamus against a district clerk unless such is necessary to enforce the
jurisdiction of the appellate court); see also T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. § 2 2.221(a)

- (b).

STEVE SMITH Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Johnson, and Justice Smith Petition denied Opinion delivered and filed May 11, 2022 [OT06 ]
#### In the Matter of Michael Melendez, Appellant, v Andrea Evans, as Chair of the Division of Parole, Respondent.

[974 NYS2d 294]

Spain, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (LaBuda, J.), entered October 3, 2012 in Sullivan County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Board of Parole denying petitioner’s request for parole release.

In 1991, petitioner was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of 25 years to life following his conviction of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. Petitioner appeared before the Board of Parole for the first time in December 2011, at which time the Board declined to release him to parole supervision and ordered him held for an additional 24 months. When petitioner did not receive a *997timely response to his administrative appeal, he commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding. Supreme Court dismissed the petition and this appeal ensued.

Among the challenges raised by petitioner is a claim that the Board improperly failed to utilize a “COMPAS re-entry risk assessment” instrument as required pursuant to the amendments to Executive Law § 259-c (4), which became effective October 1, 2011 (see L 2011, ch 62, § 1, part C, § 1, subpart A, § 49 [f]). For the reasons stated in our decision in *Matter of Garfield v Evans*(108 AD3d 830 [2013]), handed down after Supreme Court’s judgment herein, we agree (see *Matter of Thomas v Evans,*109 AD3d 1069 [2013]; *Matter of Malerba v Evans,*109 AD3d 1067 [2013]). In light of the foregoing, petitioner’s remaining contentions are academic.

Peters, PJ., McCarthy and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs, determination annulled and matter remitted to the Board of Parole for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court’s decision.