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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the condensed
consolidated balance sheets and statements of income and cash flows and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-02-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-04-1998
<CASH>                                             344
<SECURITIES>                                     3,113<F1>
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,089
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,127
<INVENTORY>                                      5,465
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                29,628
<PP&E>                                          11,434
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,043
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  38,054
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,048
<BONDS>                                         14,161
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           323
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,588
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    38,054
<SALES>                                          7,955
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 9,163
<CGS>                                            6,034
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,034
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,929
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   394
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 376
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    228
<INCOME-TAX>                                        92
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                133
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       133
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.34<F2><F3>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.34<F3>
<FN>
<F1>Represents retained interest in transferred credit card receivables
<F2>Represents basic earnings per share
<F3>Restated to reflect the Company's adoption of Statement of Financial
Accounting Standards No. 128, "Earnings Per Share".
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 22-10651

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Angel Nicole Gonzales, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:21-CR-72-7

______________________________

Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The attorney appointed to represent Angel Nicole Gonzales has 

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders 

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 

(5th Cir. 2011). Gonzales has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 25, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-10651 Document: 00516622419 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/25/2023
No. 22-10651

2

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to 

withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities 

herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

However, there is a clerical error in the written judgment. The 

judgment refers to the offense of conviction as “possession with intent to

distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine,” but the record reflects 

that Gonzales pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute 50 grams 

or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of 

methamphetamine. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(viii). Accordingly, 

we REMAND for the limited purpose of correcting the clerical error in the 

written judgment. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 36.

Case: 22-10651 Document: 00516622419 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/25/2023
Exhibit 99.4
 CERTIFICATE 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 (the “Report”) on the Form 10-K of Sona Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Monika Sagar, Chief Accounting Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Director, 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 and belief:
 
 1.    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 
 2.     The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
 
 
 Dated: December 10, 2009
 MONIKA SAGAR
 Monika Sagar
 Chief Accounting Officer,
 Chief Financial Officer and Director
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -1-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           2,547
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   46,832
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,293
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                77,113
<PP&E>                                         120,551
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,075
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 366,798
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           52,210
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              330
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (30,479)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   366,798
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                67,696
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   60,164
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,652
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    82
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,311
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,120)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (572)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,548)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (1,373)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,921)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.12)
        

</TABLE>
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  of  Cubic  Energy,  Inc.  (the
     "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed
     with  the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
     "Report"),  I, CFO,  certify,  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.

     Date: February 14, 2007                      Signature: /s/ James L. Busby
                                                            --------------------
                                                            James L. Busby, CFO
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T W E N H U E I C H E N G a . k. a . E n H ui Z he ng, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 74593 A ge nc yN o. A 095- 687- 729 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d F e bruary21, 2012 ** B efo re: F E RN A N D E Z , M cK E O W N , an dB Y B E E , C i rcu i tJu d g es. W en H uei C heng , a nat i ve and ci t i ze n o f C hi na, pet i t i on s pro se for r evi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ order di sm i ss i ng her app ea l fr om an i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s de c i s i on de ny i ng he rappl i c a t i on f ora s y l um , w i thhol di ng of r e m ova l , and r e l i e f

unde rthe C onve nt i on A ga i ns tT ortur e ( “ C A T ” ) . W e ha ve 

# FI LED FEB 28 2 012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 74593 2 j ur i s di c t i on unde r8 U . S . C . § 1252. W e r e vi e w f ors ubs t ant i a l e vi de nc e the ag en cy’ s factu al fi n d i n g s, ap p l yi n g th e n ew st an d ard s g o v ern i n g ad v erse c r e d ib ilityd e te rm in a tio n s c r e a te db yth e R e a l I D A c t. Sh restha v. H older , 590 F . 3 d1 0 3 4 , 1 0 3 9 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 1 0 ) . We d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. S ubs t ant i a l e vi de nc e s upport s the a ge nc y ’ s a dve r s e c r e di bi l i tyde t e rm i na t i on ba s e d on, a m ong othe rf i ndi ngs , the i nc ons i s t e nc ybe tw e e n C he ng’ s t e s t i m onyand th e tw o d if

f e r e n t b irth c e rtif

ic a te s s h e p r e s e n te dr e g ar d in g h e rb irth p la c e . Se e P al v . I NS , 2 0 4 F .3 d9 3 5 , 9 3 8 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . C h e n g ’s e x p lan a tio n th a t s h e is illite r a te d o e s n o t c o m p e l ac o n tr aryc o n c lu s io n . Se e La ta v . I NS , 2 0 4 F .3 d1 2 4 1 , 1 2 4 5 ( 9 th C i r . 2000) . I n the abs e nc e of c r e di bl e t e s t i m ony , C he ng’ s a s y l um a nd w i thhol di ng o f r e m o v a l c la im s f

a il. Se e Fa ra h v . A s h c r o ft , 34 8 F . 3d 11 53 , 11 56 (9th C i r. 20 03 ). B e c aus e C he ng’ s C A T c l a i m i s ba s e d on the t e s t i m onythe a ge nc yf ound not c r e di bl e , and s he poi nt s t o no othe re vi de nc e s how i ng i ti s m or e l i ke l ythan nots he w ill b e to rtu r e dif

r e tu rn e dto C h in a , h e rC A T c la im a ls o f a ils . Se e i d. a t 1 1 5 6 - 5 7 . P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Q Lotus Holdings, Inc.
(the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended March 31, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jorge Gonzalez, Chief Financial 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 my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
(15 U.S.C 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



The foregoing statement is furnished pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) and for no other reason.



| | /s/ Jorge Gonzalez                                     
| | -------------------------------------------------------
| | Jorge Gonzalez                                         
| | Chief Financial Officer and Principal Financial Officer
| | July 10, 2012
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A15A1925. WILLIE MOSS v. THE STATE.

Willie Moss was convicted of numerous offenses, including one count of

murder and one count of felony murder, and the trial court denied his motion for new

trial. Moss then filed a direct appeal, which has been docketed in this Court.

Under our Constitution, the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over

“[a]ll cases in which a sentence of death was imposed or could be imposed.” See Ga.

Const. of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par. III (8). Because a penalty of death can be

imposed for the crime of murder, jurisdiction is proper in the Supreme Court. See

OCGA § 17-10-30 (b); Neal v. State, 290 Ga. 563, 572 (722 SE2d 765) (2012)

(Hunstein, C. J., concurring); see also State v. Thornton, 253 Ga. 524 (1) (322 SE2d

711) (1984) (directing this Court to transfer “all cases in which either a sentence of

death or of life imprisonment has been imposed upon conviction of murder”). 

Accordingly, Moss’s appeal is hereby TRANSFERRED to the Supreme Court for

disposition.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

07/02/2015

July 02, 2015
From: The District Court of the 4th Judicial District. County of Missoula.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. AMBER BRUSE, Defendant,

CAUSE NO. DC-02-23 DECISION

On January 27,2009, the defendant was sentenced to a commitment to the Department of Corrections for a term of ten (10) years, with five (5) years suspended for violation of the conditions of a suspended sentence, for the offense of Count I: Theft, a felony. The Court recommends that the Defendant be screened for the Pre-Release program with the idea that at least 50% of her earned wages be devoted to payment of restitution and other court costs.

On April 3, 2009, the defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The defendant was present and was represented by Eric Olson. The state was represented by Fred Van Valkenburg, who appeared via video conference.

Before hearing the application, the defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that she understood this and stated that she wished to proceed.

Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana provides that “the sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive.” (§46-18-904(3), MCA).

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

Done in open Court this 3rd day of April, 2009.

DATED this 30th day of April, 2009.

Chairperson, Hon. Stewart Stadler, Member, Hon. Blair Jones and Member, Hon. Richard Simonton.
#### Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., Respondent, v Kirk Gibson et al., Defendants, and Brett Jones, Appellant.

[976 NYS2d 142]

In an action, inter alia, to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Brett Jones appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kurtz, J.), dated May 22, 2012, which granted the plaintiffs motion to restore the action to the active calendar, and pursuant to CPLR 3025 for leave to amend the complaint so as to assert certain additional causes of action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was to restore this action to the active calendar. CPLR 3404 does not apply to this pre-note of issue ac*876tion *(see Rakha v Pinnacle Bus Servs.,*98 AD3d 657, 658 [2012]; *Matter of Butler v Board of Trustees N.Y. City Fire Dept. Pension Fund,*91 AD3d 867, 868 [2012]; *Varricchio v Sterling,*86 AD3d 535, 536 [2011]; *Mitskevitch v City of New York,*78 AD3d 1137, 1138 [2010]; *Lopez v Imperial Delivery Serv.,*282 AD2d 190 [2001]). Further, there was neither a 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216, nor an order dismissing the complaint pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27 *(see Arroyo v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y.,*110 AD3d 17 [2013]; *Rakha v Pinnacle Bus Servs.,*98 AD3d at 658; *Mitskevitch v City of New York,*78 AD3d at 1138).

Moreover, the Supreme Court correctly granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3025 for leave to amend the complaint so as to assert certain additional causes of action. “Pursuant to CPLR 3025 (b), leave to amend a pleading should be freely given, provided that the amendment is not palpably insufficient, does not prejudice or surprise the opposing party, and is not patently devoid of merit” *(Rechler Equity B-1, LLC v AKR Corp., 98*AD3d 496, 498 [2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]; *see Finkelstein v Lincoln Natl. Corp.,*107 AD3d 759, 761 [2013]; *Spodek v Neiss,*104 AD3d 758, 759 [2013]; *Lucido v Mancuso,*49 AD3d 220, 229 [2008]). Here, the proposed amendments were neither palpably insufficient nor patently devoid of merit, and there was no evidence that the amendments would prejudice or surprise the appellant. Rivera, J.E, Angiolillo, Hall and Cohen, JJ., concur.
#### Robert Dillard Jones, Appellant, v Naziemul Safi et al., Defendants, and Lazarowitz & Manganillo, PC., et al., Respondents.

Submitted November 9, 2009;

decided December 17, 2009

Reported below, 58 AD3d 603.

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
Exhibit 32

Certification Persuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)

Persuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) the
undersigned General Partners of TASA Products Limited, a Washington limited
partnership (the "Company"), do hereby certify, to the best of such General
Partner's knowledge and belief, that:

1. The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006 (the
"Form 10-Q) of the Company 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


/s/MICHEL E. MAES                       /s/JAMES R. STEFFEY
Michel E. Maes                          James R. Steffey
Co-General Partner                      Co-General Partner
Date: 7-20-06                           Date: 7-20-06
#### In re C.M.S.

Case below: 184 N.C. App. - (3 July 2007)

No. 398P07

Respondent’s (Mother) PDR Under N.C.G.S. 7A-31 (COA07-108)

Denied 11/08/07
#### UNITED STATES of America, v. Stelios MAVROGIORGIS et al., Defendants.

No. 69 Cr. 558.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

Dec. 31, 1969.

Robert M. Morgenthau, U. S. Atty. for Southern District of New York, by James

T. B. Tripp, Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City, for United States of America.

Francis G. Mantzaris, New York City, for defendant Mavrogiorgis.

MANSFIELD, District Judge.

In this prosecution based upon a two-count indictment charging conspiracy to file false statements with, and to defraud, the Immigration and Naturalization Service in violation of 18 U.S..C. § 371 and the making of a false statement on a visa application filed with the Immigration and Naturalization Service in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001 and 2, defendant Mavrogiorgis has moved for extensive particulars, principally evidentiary in nature, with respect to 13 numbered items. The Government has furnished information in response to Items 1, 5, 11 and 12 and opposes the balance. Except as consented to by the Government, the motion is denied.

The function of a bill of particulars is not to obtain a disclosure of the evidence or witnesses to be offered by the Government at trial, but to minimize surprise, enable the movant to obtain such ultimate facts as are needed to prepare his defense, and permit the movant successfully to plead double jeopardy if he should be prosecuted later for the same offense. United States v. Lebron, 222 F.2d 531 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 350 U. S. 876, 76 S.Ct. 121, 100 L.Ed. 774 (1955); United States v. Klein, 124 F. Supp. 476 (S.D.N.Y.1954); United States v. Crisona, 271 F.Supp. 150 (S.D.N.Y.1967).

 None of the denied items falls within the required or advisable area of pretrial disclosure. Names and addresses of prospective Government witnesses, except in capital cases, need not be fur*215nished. United States v. Hasiwar, 299 F.Supp. 1053 (S.D.N.Y.1969). Evidentiary details of the type requested in Items 3, 8 and 13 fall, within the same category. United States v. Cimino, 31 F.R.D. 277, 281 (S.D.N.Y.1962); United States v. Kahaner, 203 F.Supp. 78, 84 (S.D.N.Y.1962), aff'd., 317 F.2d 459 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 836, 84 S. Ct. 74, 11 L.Ed.2d 65 (1963). As we have recently ruled in another case, United States v. Sarantos et al., 69 Cr. 559 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 8, 1969), the criminal record of a prospective Government witness need not be furnished until trial. S,ee United States v. Westmoreland, 41 F.R.D. 419, 427 (D.Ind.1967).

It is so ordered.
[909 NE2d 83, 881 NYS2d 390]

#### Arts4All, Ltd., Appellant, et al., Plaintiff, v Judith L. Hancock, Respondent and Counterclaim Plaintiff-Respondent, et al., Additional Counterclaim Defendants.

Decided May 12, 2009

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Zachary R. Greenhill, P.C.,*New York City *(Zachary R. Greenhill*of counsel), for appellant.

*Trachtenberg Rodes & Friedberg LLP,*New York City *(David G. Trachtenberg*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division, insofar as appealed from, *847should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question not answered as unnecessary.

The courts below applied the correct legal standards, properly considered all the facts and circumstances of the case, and did not abuse their discretion in dismissing plaintiffs’ remaining cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3126 (3) *(see Kihl v Pfeffer,*94 NY2d 118, 123 [1999]).

Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum; Chief Judge Lippman taking no part.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, etc.