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

<ARTICLE> 7
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                         1,610,694
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                      21,536
<MORTGAGE>                                       5,592
<REAL-ESTATE>                                    1,365
<TOTAL-INVEST>                               1,833,242
<CASH>                                           6,337
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                             277,625
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                         160,153
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,519,320
<POLICY-LOSSES>                              1,708,859
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                             14,221
<POLICY-OTHER>                                 259,215
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                125,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            16
<OTHER-SE>                                     105,226
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,519,320
<PREMIUMS>                                     450,992
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                            124,340
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                              17,210
<OTHER-INCOME>                                       0
<BENEFITS>                                     332,476
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                     11,075
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                           164,544
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 76,091
<INCOME-TAX>                                    21,890
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             54,201
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    54,201
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.89
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.89
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
#### Maria Magdalena VELASQUEZ-ESCOBAR, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-72321.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 16, 2006.*

Filed Oct. 18, 2006.

*145Stephen Shaiken, Esq., Law Office of Stephen Shaiken, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, U.S. Dept of Justice, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment & Natural Resources Division, Anchorage, AK, for Respondent.

Before: T.G. NELSON, W. FLETCHER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Maria Magdalena Velasquez-Escobar, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ summary affirmance of an Immigration Judge’s (“U”) denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence, *INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S.*478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s decision that petitioner failed to show past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of an enumerated ground. Because petitioner testified that she does not know who kidnaped her father and beat and raped her, her asylum claim fails. *See id.*

Because petitioner failed to establish eligibility for asylum, she failed to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. *See Al-Harbi v. INS,*242 F.3d 882, 888-89 (9th Cir.2001) (internal quotation omitted).

Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s conclusion that petitioner failed to show that it was more likely than not that she will be tortured if returned to Guatemala. *See Malhi v. INS,*336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
##### 



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 Quarterly Report of Permian Basin Royalty Trust (the
Trust) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the trustee of
the Trust, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its 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; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Trust. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., TRUSTEE FOR
PERMIAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUSTDate: May 10, 2004
    By:
    /s/  RON E. HOOPERRon E. Hooper,Senior Vice President, Royalty Management
Bank of America, N.A. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Permian Basin Royalty Trust and will be retained by Permian Basin
Royalty Trust and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
<PAGE>
                                  EXHIBIT 11.1

                            RICHEY ELECTRONICS, INC.
                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
               ($ AND SHARES IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)
                                   (UNAUDITED)


                                                            QUARTER ENDED
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                       MARCH 28,      MARCH 29,
                                                         1997           1996
                                                     ------------   ------------
Primary earnings per share:

  Net income used to compute primary
    earnings per share                                   $1,703         $1,142
                                                     ------------   -----------
                                                     ------------   -----------

  Weighted average number of shares used to
    compute primary earnings per share                    9,063          9,057
                                                     ------------   -----------
                                                     ------------   -----------

  Primary earnings per share                              $0.19          $0.13
                                                     ------------   -----------
                                                     ------------   -----------


Fully diluted earnings per share:

  Net income                                             $1,703         $1,142

  Add: Interest on convertible subordinated
    notes payable, net of taxes                             596            210
                                                     ------------   -----------

  Net income used to compute fully diluted
    earnings per share                                   $2,299         $1,352
                                                     ------------   -----------
                                                     ------------   -----------

  Weighted average number of shares outstanding           9,063          9,057

  Add: Weighted average shares of convertible
    subordinated notes payable assuming conversion        3,947          1,349
                                                     ------------   -----------

  Weighted average number of shares used to
    compute fully diluted earnings per share             13,010         10,406
                                                     ------------   -----------
                                                     ------------   -----------

  Fully diluted earnings per share                        $0.18          $0.13
                                                     ------------   -----------
                                                     ------------   -----------
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration
 By Notice dated October 9, 2008 and published in the 
                    **Federal Register**
                     on October 17, 2008, (73 FR 61912), Cayman Chemical Company, 1180 East Ellsworth Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48108, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed in schedule I: Drug
ScheduleMarihuana (7360)
ITetrahydrocannabinols (7370)
I
 The company plans to manufacture small quantities of marihuana derivatives for research purposes. In reference to drug code 7360 (Marihuana), the company plans to manufacture cannabidiol. In reference to drug code 7370 (Tetrahydrocannabinols), the company plans to manufacture synthetic Tetrahydrocannabinols. No other activity for their drug codes is authorized. No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Cayman Chemical Company to manufacture the listed basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Cayman Chemical Company to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with State and local laws, and a review of the 
                    ( print page 23434)
                    company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed. Dated: May 8, 2009. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration.


[FR Doc. E9-11623 Filed 5-18-09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
#### Nathaniel Klipper et al., Plaintiffs, and Drew Doscher et al., Respondents, v Liberty Helicopters, Inc., et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

[974 NYS2d 353]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered May 1, 2013, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants Liberty Helicopters, Inc., Liberty Helicopters, Inc. (NY), Meridian Consulting Co., Inc. and Paul Tramontana’s motion to compel plaintiff Doscher to produce any transcripts of his testimony in his divorce action, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to grant *580the motion to the extent of compelling Doscher to produce to the motion court, for in camera review, those portions of the transcript of his divorce action, and documents related thereto, that reveal information relevant to his claims for lost earnings and future revenue, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

By asserting a claim for lost earnings and future revenue, plaintiff Doscher put his financial status in issue, and waived the protection afforded by Domestic Relations Law § 235 (1) *(see Janecka v Casey,*121 AD2d 28 [1st Dept 1986]). Portions of transcripts and related documents that reflect Doscher’s financial status before the accident are material and necessary to defendants in their defense of this action *(see Janecka,*121 AD2d at 32; CPLR 3101 [a]). Upon its in camera review of these materials, the motion court will be able to tailor Doscher’s production to defendants so as to balance his right to privacy with their right to relevant information *(see Solomon v Meyer,*103 AD3d 1025, 1026 [3d Dept 2013]).

We have considered defendants’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Feinman and Clark, JJ.
#### Tyrone Worrell, Appellant, v Parkway Estates, LLC, Defendant, and 1299 Eastern, LLC, Respondent.

Submitted May 4, 2009;

decided June 24, 2009

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.
#### Stephen Downs, Appellant, v Town of Guilderland et al., Respondents.

Decided June 29, 2010

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.
#### Booz *v.*Batty.

After the defendant in a suit upon a promissory note, brought and tried in a justice’s court, has established in that court the defence of payment, failure to reduce the defence to writing before the jury is stricken in the superior court to try an appeal taken by the plaintiff, will not preclude the filing of a proper plea of payment then tendered, unless it affirmatively appears that some injustice will be done the plaintiff by allowing the plea to be filed. Where, on the contrary, it affirmatively appeared that the same defence sought to be set up by the plea was litigated in the justice’s court, it was error not to permit the plea to be filed. This ruling is made in full view of the acts of Sept. 26tb, 1883 (Acts 1882-3, p. 103), Oct. 15th, 1885 (Acts 1884-5, p. 97), and Oct. 16th, 1891 (Acts 1890 1, p. 111). *Judgment reversed.*

August 6, 1894.

Appeal. Before Judge Heiiry. Polk superior court. August term, 1898.

*670A. Richardson, Blance & Fielder and Colville & Noyes, for plaintiff in error. Irwin & Bunn, *contra.*

Suit was brought in justice’s court on three promissory notes. Defendant had judgment in each, and appeals were taken to the superior court, where the cases were consolidated. Plaintiff moved for judgment in his favor, because the suits were upon unconditional contracts and no written plea had been filed in the justice’s court. Thereupon defendant offered a written plea setting up the defence of payment; and offered to show to the court that the defence therein set forth was made to the suits in the justice’s court, and that no point or objection was made there on the ground that the defence was not reduced to writing. This was overruled by the court, thé plea disallowed, and judgment for plaintiff rendered.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of World Waste
Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December
31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"),
I, John Pimentel, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 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.


May 3, 2007                                       /s/ John Pimentel
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  John Pimentel
                                                  Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1998
<CASH>                                          26,403
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                26,403
<PP&E>                                       1,675,816
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,702,219
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          512,119
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  1,350,000
<COMMON>                                        11,086
<OTHER-SE>                                   (170,986)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,702,219
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                           20,599
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   20,599
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (20,599)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (20,599)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (72,734)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.02)
        

</TABLE>
1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________ NO. 09-16-00445-CV



### ____________________ JOSHUA DEL JENNINGS SR., Appellant V. BRITTANY NICOLE RAWLINSON, Appellee

___________________ __________________ __________________ _________________ On Appeal from the 75th District Court Liberty County, Texas Trial Cause No. CV1610540

___________________ __________________ __________________ _________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Joshua Del Jennings Sr., Appellant, file d a notice of appeal with the trial court on July 18, 2016. Despite written no tices from this Court and an opportunity to cure, to date, Appellant has neither es tablished indigence nor paid the filing fee for the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 5, 20.1. In a ddition, no clerk’s record has been filed, and the clerk responsible for prepari ng the record in this appeal informed the Court that Appellant did not make arrangements to pay for the record. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b). We notifie d the parties that the appeal would be dismissed unless2 the filing fee was paid and Ap pellant arranged to file the record. Appellant did not respond to the Court’s notices. Appellant did not file an affidavit of indigence on appeal and has not shown that he is entitled to proceed without payment of costs. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1. There being no satisfactory explanation for the failure to pay the filing fee for the appeal, and there being no satis factory explanation for the failure to file the clerk’s record, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b),
42.3. APPEAL DISMISSED.

_______ _________________________ CHARLES KREGER Justice Submitted on January 25, 2017 Opinion Delivered January 26, 2017 Before McKeithen, C.J., Kr eger and Horton, JJ.
Exhibit 32.02
                                  -------------


                            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 BSD  Medical  Corporation  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the Quarter  ending  November 30, 2003,  as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Dennis E. Bradley, 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (1)  the Report fully complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a)
              or 15(b) 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  result  of
              operations of the Company.





/s/Dennis E. Bradley
--------------------
Dennis E. Bradley
Principal Financial Officer
January 13, 2004

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
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.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

MALT BEVERAGE DISTRIBUTORS 

ASSOCIATION, GABLER'S BEVERAGE 

DISTRIBUTOR, INC. AND PKD, INC., 

 Petitioners 

 v. 

PENNSYLVANIA LIQUOR CONTROL 

BOARD, 

 Respondent 

OHIO SPRINGS, INC. AND SHEETZ, 

 Intervenors 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 648 MAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 16th day of February, 2016, the Petition for Permission to 

Substitute Answer to Petition for Allowance of Appeal of Intervener is GRANTED. 

Furthermore, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated 

by petitioner, are: 

(1) Can a single store sell both gasoline and beer without violating the Liquor 

Code? 

(2) Section 404 of the Liquor Code, 47 P.S. §4-404, prohibits the transfer of a 

liquor license to a “location” where “the sale of liquid fuels or oil is 

conducted”; what is a location? 

8 MAP 2016
[648 MAL 2015] - 2 

(3) Section 468(a)(3) of the Liquor Code, 47 P.S. §4-468(a)(3), prohibits the 

transfer of a liquor license to “any place or property upon which is located 

as a business the sale of liquid fuels and oil”; what is a place or property? 

Mr. Justice Eakin did not participate in the consideration or decision of this 

matter.