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

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                      <C> 
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         JUN-30-1997              JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                            JUL-01-1996              JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                              SEP-30-1996              SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                              0                   35,840 
<SECURITIES>                                        0                   40,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                       0                   25,982
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0                  (5,610)
<INVENTORY>                                         0                   39,454
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    0                  157,053
<PP&E>                                              0                   52,874
<DEPRECIATION>                                      0                 (22,115)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      0                  315,095
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               0                   82,512
<BONDS>                                             0                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0                        0
<PREFERRED>                                         0                        0
<COMMON>                                            0                   12,805
<OTHER-SE>                                          0                  217,611
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        0                  315,095
<SALES>                                        15,016                   20,035
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               15,016                   20,035
<CGS>                                          12,051                   14,685
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  12,051                   14,685
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                2,670                    3,145
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  119                      171
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              (972)                    (441)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (4,044)                  (4,821)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (1,537)                  (1,832)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (2,507)                  (2,989)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  6,077                    6,277
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0                        0
<CHANGES>                                           0                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                    3,570                    3,288
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.15                     0.13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.15                     0.13
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 31.1



Certification of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 302 (a) of the US Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



I, Michael Huddy, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of

International Barrier Technology Inc.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The Registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have:



a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure

controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that

material information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated

subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,

particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrants disclosure controls and

procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the

effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of

the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrants internal control

over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrants most recent

fiscal quarter (the Registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an

annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to

materially affect, the Registrants internal control over financial

reporting; and



5. The Registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrants auditors and the audit committee of the Registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or

operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably

likely to adversely affect the Registrants ability to record, process,

summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other

employees who have a significant role in the Registrants internal control

over financial reporting.



/s/ Michael Huddy

Michael Huddy

President/CEO

October 14, 2008
#### DON SETLIFF & ASSOCIATES, INC. v. SUBWAY REAL ESTATE CORP.

No. 413PA06

(Filed 12 October 2007)

On discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 of a unanimous decision of the Court of Appeals, 178 N.C. App. 385, 631 S.E.2d 526 (2006), affirming a judgment entered on 15 July 2005 by Judge Thomas G. Foster, Jr. in District Court, Guilford County. Heard in the Supreme Court 10 September 2007.

*Wyatt Early Harris Wheeler, LLP, by Stanley F. Hammer, for plaintiff-appellant.*

*Norman L. Sloan for defendant-appellee.*

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.
World Hydrography
a

Nautical | | Bathymetry || deep | | sound || LIDAR || Hydrography | | speed | | Sonar] | multibeam
Across Down aes
4. charts are based on data acquired during 1. Sonar uses waves to determine seafloor
bathymetric surveys depth
6. Measurement of ocean depths and the charting of the 2. Surveying with echo sounders is the
shape or topography of the ocean floor primary method of obtaining hydrographic data “

7. Aircrafts can be equipped with to measure 3. Sound Navigation and Ranging
water depths in areas with complex and rugged | 5. Branch of applied sciences that deals with the
shorelines | measurement and description of the physical features of
9. The average of sound in water is 1,500 m/s oceans, seas, coasts
8. Bathymetry comes from Greek Ba@ Uc (bathus),
', and yétpov (metron), ‘measure’
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

As of the date  hereof,  I, Steven G.  Mihaylo,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that the Quarterly Report of Inter-Tel,  Incorporated on Form 10-Q for the
fiscal  quarter  ended June 30, 2003 fully  complies  with the  requirements  of
Section  13(a)  or  15(d)  of the  Securities  exchange  Act of  1934  and  that
information  contained in such Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in
all material  respects the  financial  condition  and results of  operations  of
Inter-Tel, Incorporated.

                                     By:  /s/  Steven G. Mihaylo
                                         ---------------------------------------

                                   Name:  Steven G. Mihaylo
                                         ---------------------------------------

                                  Title:  Chief Executive Officer
                                         ---------------------------------------

                                  Dated:  August 14, 2003
                                         ---------------------------------------

                                       37
#### Walter S. McNaughton, Appellant, v RY Management, Inc., et al., Respondents.

[961 NYS2d 774]

Order, Supreme Court, *417Bronx County (Julia I. Rodriguez, J.), entered March 5, 2012, which denied plaintiffs motion for a default judgment against defendants, and granted defendant RY Management, Inc.’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of service, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly dismissed the action, as plaintiff failed to offer any proof of service of process *(see Security Pac. Natl. Trust [N.Y.] v Chunassamy,*289 AD2d 151 [1st Dept 2001]).

Nor has plaintiff shown any reason why the stipulation of discontinuance with prejudice entered into with defendant New York City Housing Authority should not be enforced *(see Hal-lock v State of New York,*64 NY2d 224, 230 [1984]; *Lukaszuk v Lukaszuk,*304 AD2d 625, 625 [2d Dept 2003]).

Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Moskowitz, DeGrasse, Feinman and Clark, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7120

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. WENLEY MCCLAREN, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. (3:90-cr-00007-JPB-1)

Submitted: March 17, 2009 Decided: March 20, 2009

Before TRAXLER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brian Christopher Crockett, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellant. Paul Thomas Camilletti, Thomas Oliver Mucklow, Assistant United States Attorneys, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Wenley McClaren appeals the district court’s order granting in part and denying in part his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm.
United States v. McClaren , No. 3:90-cr-00007-JPB-1 (N.D.W. Va. June 30, 2008); see United States v. Dunphy , 551 F.3d 247 (4th Cir. 2009). We further deny McClaren’s motion to appoint counsel. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
#### IN THE MATTER OF C.D.A.W., a minor child

No. 110A06

(Filed 9 March 2007)

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 175 N.C. App. 680, 625 S.E.2d 139 (2006), affirming an order entered 20 July 2004 by Judge Susan E. Bray in District Court, Guilford County. Heard in the Supreme Court 13 February 2007.

*Guilford County Attorney’s Office, by James A. Dickens, Deputy County Attorney, for petitioner-appellee Guilford County Department of Social Services.*

*Joyce L. Terres for appellee Guardian ad Litem.*

*Carlton, Rhodes, & Carlton, by Gary C. Rhodes, for respondent-appellant mother.*

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LILI HE, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 15-70274 

Agency No. A089-479-987 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 08, 2020**

Before: SCHROEDER, TROTT, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Lili He, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an 

immigration judge’s decision denying her applications for asylum and withholding 

of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

SEP 10 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-70274 

substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards 

governing adverse credibility determinations under the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. 

Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We review de novo claims of due 

process violations in immigration proceedings. Jiang v. Holder, 754 F.3d 733, 738 

(9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination 

based on significant omissions from He’s original asylum application and credible 

fear interview, particularly her claims that she was arrested and detained in 2007 

and subjected to a subsequent monthly reporting requirement. Shrestha, 590 F.3d 

at 1048 (adverse credibility finding must be based on the totality of the 

circumstances); Jiang, 754 F.3d at 738-40 (substantial evidence review is a highly 

deferential standard that requires upholding the adverse credibility finding so long 

as even one basis is supported by substantial evidence). He’s explanations do not 

compel a contrary conclusion. See Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir. 

2011) (agency not required to accept explanations for inconsistencies). In the 

absence of credible testimony, He’s asylum and withholding of removal claims 

fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Additionally, the agency properly admitted and gave appropriate weight to 

the credible fear interview notes that He submitted into evidence. The agency also 

provided He with a sufficient opportunity to explain any perceived inconsistencies 
3 15-70274 

or omissions in the record. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by He’s contentions 

on appeal that the agency violated her right to due process by failing to provide her 

with a full and fair hearing. Gutierrez v. Holder, 662 F.3d 1083, 1091 (9th Cir. 

2011) (a court will grant a petition on due process grounds only if the proceeding 

was so fundamentally unfair that the alien was prevented from reasonably 

presenting his case) (citations and quotation marks omitted).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
#### Early County *v.*Powell

1. A special act providing for the compensation of managers and clerks of elections in a given county, which declares that these persons shall each receive for their services in holding elections $2 per day, entitles them to the *per diem,*mentioned, not only for the day on which the voting is done, hut- for the next day, when their services are necessary in completing the count and making up the returns.

2. The county, when charged by statute with the expense of holding-elections, may be sued for the same, after due presentation of the claim to the proper officers and their refusal to audit and allow the same.

3. Proof that an account was presented to be audited and allowed, implies that the account was in writing when presented.

4. By virtue of the act of October 17th, 1885 (Acts, p. 68), the sheriff is empowered to serve a summons originating a suit in a j ustice’s court. Personal service made by him upon county commissioners, is personal service upon the county, where such commissioners, and not the ordinary, are the financial agents of the county.

August *14,*1894.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Certiorari.*Before Judge Griggs. Early superior court. October term, 1893.

Powell sued the county on account for two days’' service as clerk in the election for county officers, $4 and one day’s service as clerk in the election for justice of the peace in the 866th district G. M., $2. Upon this account was an affidavit by plaintiff, that the same was just, trué and unpaid, that he had presented it to the board of commissioners of roads and revenues of Early county, and they refused payment, and that it is lawful to be paid under the act of the legislature of 1885. Acts 1884-5, p. 643. The suit ivas personally served by the sheriff on five named persons as a majority of the county commissioners. The defendant did not plead or offer any defence. Plaintiff" testified that he served two days as clerk at the election in January, 1893, for county officers, serving from 7 o’clock a.m. to 11 o’clock p.M.,when [the managers] adjourned to 8 o’clock next morning, and *681then “finished counting out in time to consolidate.” He also served as clerk in the election for justice of the peace in 1898, for which he was entitled to $2 per day.

R. H. Sheffield, by Harrison & Peeples, for plaintiff in error. R. H. Powell & Son, *contra.*

The justice gave judgment for $6 in plaintiff’s favor. By *certiorari*defendant assigned error on the grounds indicated by the head-notes. The *certiorari*was overruled, and defendant excepted.
#### Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Respondent, v Jared King, Appellant.

Submitted January 11, 2010;

decided January 14, 2010

Reported below, 55 AD3d 1074.

Motion by CAMBA Legal Services, Inc. et al. for leave to appear amici curiae on the appeal herein granted only to the extent that the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Two copies of the brief must be served and 24 copies filed within seven days.
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 BSD Medical Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Dennis P. Gauger, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 result of operations of the Company.




/s/ Dennis P. GaugerDennis P. GaugerChief Financial Officer(Principal Accounting Officer)January 14, 2011







---
Exhibit 32

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 Telos Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period
ending March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, John B. Wood and Michele Nakazawa, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to our 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 Company.



Date: May 13, 2009/s/ John B. WoodJohn B. WoodChief Executive OfficerDate: May 13, 2009/s/ Michele NakazawaMichele NakazawaChief Financial Officer




41
EXHIBIT 31
 CERTIFICATION
      a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including any consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under my supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes;c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves persons who have a
significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
  Date: August 6, 2010
    By:
    /s/ Lee Ann AndersonLee Ann AndersonVice President and Senior Trust Officer,
Compass Bank
GREENPOINT MORTGAGE FUNDING, INC.  SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT **GPMF 2007-AR1**I, Michael Gathright, an authorized officer of GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. (the "Servicer"), certify that: 1.A review of the Servicer's activities during the period from and including January 1, 2007 through and including December 31, 2007 (or applicable portion thereof) and of the Servicer's performance under the applicable servicing agreement has been made under my supervision. 2.To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in all material respects throughout such period. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement. Date: February 29, 2008 /s/ Michael Gathright Michael Gathright Senior Vice President, Loan Administration
#### Penguin Group (USA) Inc., Appellant, v American Buddha, Respondent.

Decided June 29, 2010

Certification of a question by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, pursuant to section 500.27 of the Rules of Practice of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.27), accepted and the issues presented are to be considered after briefing and argument.

Concur: Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones.
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 REGENT  TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (the
"Company") on  Form  10-Q  for  the  period  ended June 30, 2011  as  filed with
the  Securities and Exchange Commission on the  date hereof (the "Report"), each
of the undersigned  does hereby  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted  pursuant to Section 906  of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his
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.

Dated:   August 15, 2011

/s/ David A. Nelson
--------------------------------------------------------
David A. Nelson
Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer