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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND FROM CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF EARNINGS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           1,585
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  552,553
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    318,565
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               904,698
<PP&E>                                       3,224,983
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,504,018)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,855,822
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          741,957
<BONDS>                                        587,290
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        15,608
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,231,677
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,855,822
<SALES>                                      4,081,244
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,078,502
<CGS>                                        3,099,671
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  393,250
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               319,071
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              38,248
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                228,262
<INCOME-TAX>                                    75,056
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            153,206
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   153,206
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     4.91
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# Sheet1

&"Arial,Bold"AMD-136A&"Arial,Regular" (08/11)		

 OTHER-specify  

 AIRPLANE

 SEAT

 HELICOPTER

 AIR TANKER

 FIRE MANAGEMENT

 RESOURCE

 MAINTENANCE

 OTHER MISSION-specify:

 OFF-SHORE

Exceptional

Very Good

Satisfactory

Marginal

Unsatisfactory

N/A

Exceptional

Very Good

Satisfactory

Marginal

Unsatisfactory

N/A

Exceptional

Very Good

Satisfactory

Marginal

Unsatisfactory

N/A

Exceptional

Very Good

Satisfactory

Marginal

Unsatisfactory

N/A

Exceptional

Very Good

Satisfactory

Marginal

Unsatisfactory

N/A

Exceptional

Very Good

Satisfactory

Marginal

Unsatisfactory

NO

 EXTERNAL LOAD

YES

N/A

 Exclusive Use

 On Call

 Call When Needed (CWN)

Aircraft Rental Agreement (ARA)

# Guidance

# Sheet3
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 96-4007

___________

Michael McCaslin, by his guardian *

ad litem, Bonnie McCaslin, *

*

Appellant, *

*

Bonnie McCaslin, guardian ad litem, *

*

Interested Party, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the 

County of York, * District of Nebraska

*

Defendant, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Dale Radcliff, Deputy Sheriff of York *

County, in his official and individual *

capacity, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: February 6, 1998

 Filed: February 25, 1998

___________

Before McMILLIAN, LOKEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.
The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District 1

of Nebraska.

-2-

Michael McCaslin appeals from a final order of the United States District Court1

for the District of Nebraska dismissing his complaint with prejudice for failure to

prosecute under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). We have carefully reviewed the entire record,

and we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying McCaslin his

third appointed counsel or in dismissing the action for failure to prosecute. See Swope

v. Cameron, 73 F.3d 850, 851-52 (8th Cir. 1996) (standard of review for denial of

appointment of counsel); Sterling v. United States, 985 F.2d 411, 412 (8th Cir. 1993)

(per curiam) (standard of review for Rule 41(b) dismissal).

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Exhibit 12
<TABLE>
                           AMERICAN HOME PRODUCTS CORPORATION
                           RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                      (Thousands of dollars, except ratio amounts)
<CAPTION>
                                         Year Ended December 31,
                         ------------------------------------------------------
Earnings:                  1995       1994*      1993       1992       1991  
                         ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- 
<S>                      <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>        
Earnings from continuing
operations before taxes
on income                $2,438,698 $2,029,760 $1,992,665 $1,724,070 $1,759,810 

Add:
Fixed charges               704,903    155,187     91,500     63,403     50,554 

Minority interest in
earnings of consolidated
subsidiary                    5,642      5,303      4,027      3,803      3,823

Minority interest in loss
of consolidated subsidiary   (4,925)   (17,873)    (9,129)    (3,149)       -   

Equity loss                     -        1,691        -          -          -   

Amortization of capitalized
interest                        768        497        -          -          -   

Less:
Capitalized interest          7,681      9,792     14,898        -          -  

Equity income                 8,129        -          -          -          -  

Dividends on preferred 
stock of majority-owned 
subsidiary                      -          -        3,436      4,589        -   
                         ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- 
  Total earnings
    as defined           $3,129,276 $2,164,773 $2,060,729 $1,783,538 $1,814,187 
                         ========== ========== ========== ========== ==========

Fixed Charges:

Interest and amortization
of debt expense            $665,021   $116,661    $47,871    $35,503    $31,431

Capitalized interest          7,681      9,792     14,898        -          -  

Interest factor of rental
 expense (a)                 32,201     28,734     25,295     23,311     19,123

Dividends on preferred
stock of majority-owned
subsidiary                      -          -        3,436      4,589        -  
                           --------   --------    -------    -------    -------
  Total fixed charges
   as defined              $704,903   $155,187    $91,500    $63,403    $50,554
                           ========   ========    =======    =======    =======
Ratio of earnings to
  fixed charges                 4.4       13.9       22.5       28.1       35.9
</TABLE>

*   - The 1994 results include one-month results of American Cyanamid
Company which was acquired by American Home Products in December in a
purchase transaction.  Assuming the acquisition took place on January 1,
1994 the pro forma ratio of earnings to fixed charges would be 2.9 for the
year ended December 31, 1994.

(a) - A 1/3 factor was utilized to compute the portion of rental expenses
deemed representative of the interest factor.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 21

- 10936

**In re: Joel Rodriguez,**

Movant

**.**

Motion for an order authorizing the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas to consider a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion

Before **Stewart, Haynes** and Ho, Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** Joel Rodriguez, federal prisoner # 42309

- 177, moves for authorization to file a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging his conviction for possession of a firearm by a prohibited person in vio lation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g) (1) and 924(e)(1). He seeks to raise a claim pursuant to Borden

v. United States , 141 S. Ct. 1817 (2021). To obtain authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 motion, Rodriguez must make a prima facie showing that h is proffered § 2255 motion relies on either (1) “newly discovered evidence that, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense,” or (2) “a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 3, 2021 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-10936 Document: 00516116683 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/03/2021No. 21

- 10936

2 previously unavailable.” § 2255(h); see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(C); Reyes

Requena v. United States , 243 F.3d 893, 897

- 99 (5th Cir. 2001). Borden does not provide a basis on which Rodriguez may obtain authorization under § 2255(h)(2) because it did not announce a new rule of constitutional law but instead addressed a question of statut ory construction

. See Borden , 141 S. Ct.
at 1825 ; see also In re Cain , No. 21

- 13241, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 30205 *6 (11th Cir. Oct. 7, 2021)(“The Supreme Court’s interpretation of a substantive criminal statute, using established rules of statutory

constru ction, does not announce a new rule of constitutional law . . . .”); In re Salas , 888 F.3d 150, 150

- 51 (5th Cir. 2018) ; Reyes

- Requena , 243 F.3d at 900

. Accordingly, because Rodriguez fails to make the requisite showing under § 2255(h) , **IT IS ORDERED** that h is motion for authorization is
**DENIED**

. Case: 21-10936 Document: 00516116683 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/03/2021
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. AP-75,888

EX PARTE ANTHONY R. BROWN, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 21206A IN THE 86TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM KAUFMAN COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of murder and

sentenced to life imprisonment. The FifthCourt of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Brown v. State,

No. 05-04-00872-CR (Tex. App. – Dallas, March 30, 2005, no pet.).

Applicant contends that his appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance because counsel

failed to inform him of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review.

Appellate counsel filed an affidavit with the trial court. Based on that affidavit, the trial court
has entered findings of fact and conclusions of law that appellate counsel failed to inform Applicant

of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. The trial court recommends that relief

be granted. Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997). We find, therefore, that

Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of-time petition for discretionary review of the

judgment of the Fifth Court of Appeals in Cause No. 05-04-00872-CR that affirmed his conviction

in Case No. 21206A from the 86th Judicial District Court of Kaufman County. Applicant shall file

his petition for discretionary review with the Fifth Court of Appeals within 30 days of the date on

which this Court’s mandate issues.

Delivered: April 9, 2008

Do not publish
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 eTotalSource, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"). I, Terry L. Eilers, Chief
Executive Officer of the company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 USC 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 Sction 13(a)
                or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


                                                /s/ Terry L. Eilers
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Terry L. Eilers, CEO

Dated:  8/16/04
##### 



ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
 OF
 CHS INC.
 (Amended and Restated Effective December 1, 2006)
 ARTICLE I.  Name and Principal Place of Business
 Section 1.
 Section 2.
 ARTICLE II.  Purposes and Powers
 Section 1.
     Section 2.




---



##### 



2




---



##### 



Section 3.
 ARTICLE III.  Duration
  ARTICLE IV.  Membership and Authorized Capital Instruments
 Section 1.
 Section 2.
   3




---



##### 



Section 3.
 Section 4.
 Section 5.
 Section 6.
   4




---



##### 



Preferred Equity
 ARTICLE V.  Net Income and Loss
  ARTICLE VI.  First Lien
  5




---



##### 



ARTICLE VII.  Certain Corporate Actions; Dissolution
 Section 1.
 Section 2.
 ARTICLE VIII.  Board of Directors
  ARTICLE IX.  Limitation of Director Liability
  6
           ARTICLE X.  Amendment
  7
EX-10.5


  Exhibit 10.5

   

  Based upon the recommendation of the Compensation and Human Capital Committee, on July 20, 2022, the Board of Directors granted a one-time supplemental cash retainer in the amount of $10,000 to Theodore Bunting in recognition of his contributions to the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee’s director recruitment efforts.
J. 

J. 

a writ of habeas corpus and filed in the district court in the first instance. 

See NRS 34.724(2)(b); NRS 34.738(1). 1Accordingly, we 

ORDER the petition DENIED. 

Hardesty 

cc: John Francis Arpino 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

Washoe County District Attorney 

1We express no opinion as to whether petitioner could meet the 

procedural requirements of NRS chapter 34. 

2
EXHIBIT 32.02





Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350


(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, the undersigned officer of Sandston Corporation (the "Company") hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/ Daniel J. DormanName:
Daniel J. DormanTitle:
President and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Financial Officer)Date:
March 25, 2011





The foregoing certification (i) accompanies the filing and is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, (ii) will not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section, and (iii) will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the small business issuer specifically incorporates it by reference.





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 Sandston Corporation and will be retained by Sandston Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Parsons *v.*Denis and others.

*(Circuit Court, E. D. Missouri.*

January 3, 1881.)

1. Construction op Statute—Mortgage a Deed.

A mortgage is a deed -within the meaning of the Missouri Statutes, (Rev. St. § 699,) which provides that “ a husband and wife may convey the real estate of the wil'c, and the wile may relinquish her dower in the real estate of her husband, by their joint deed.” Therefore, under said provision, a married woman may mortgage her separate property when her husband joins with her.

2. Practice—Equitable Defences in Actions at Law.

Equitable defences are inadmissible in actions at law in United' States courts. State practice does not affect the rule.

3. Same—Setting up Coulusive Transfer.

The proper way to set up a collusive transfer, in fraud of jurisdiction, is hy plea in abatement, and not by answer.

Demurrer to Answer.

*Henry A. Cunningham,*for plaintiff.

*Finlceluburg é Iiassieur,*for defendant.

Treat, D. J.

This is an action of ejectment in the ordinary form. To it several defences affirmatively are interposed. To all of those special defences except one a demurrer is presented:

1. The first defence is substantially that a married woman cannot mortgage her estate (her husband joining) to secure the payments of his debts.

Reference is made to the Missouri Statutes on this subject, as changed from time to time, and to the precise meaning of the term “deed,” it being contended that even if a married woman could convey absolutely (her husband joining) she could not mortgage. The distinction attempted to be drawn from the doctrine of mortgages is a subtle one; but, in the opinion of the court, a morgtage is a deed, within the meaning of the statute, and operative as such. Hence, the demurrer as to said defence is well taken.

2. The second defence is as to the inadequacy of the price at which the property was sold under foreclosure.

Equitable defences, though admissible under the state practice, are not admissible in United States courts.

*3183. The third defence stated is that the same cause of action pending is before the supreme court of Missouri, during the pendency of which a transfer of the alleged title was made to this plaintiff.

If the allegations were of a collusive transfer, in fraud of jurisdiction, that question, it is contended, should be raised in abatement. Even if that were the rule, strictly, the averment is not sufficient to raise the question. It is not averred that there was a *collusive*transfer, or that the plaintiff was not, at institution of this suit, the owner in fee.

The demurrer is sustained.
#### Cary Kittner, Individually and as Assignee of Stuart Quimby, et al., Appellants, v Eastern Mutual Insurance Company, Respondent.

Submitted February 28, 2011;

decided May 10, 2011

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

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

HERIBERTO SUAREZ-AGUILAR,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 11-10213

D.C. No. 2:10-cr-00184-EJG

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Edward J. Garcia, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 21, 2012** 

Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Heriberto Suarez-Aguilar appeals from the 57-month sentence imposed

following his guilty-plea conviction for being a deported alien found in the United

States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

FILED

MAR 01 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-10213

§ 1291, and we affirm.

Suarez-Aguilar contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable

because the district court did not vary downward from the Guidelines range based

on the “staleness” of his prior conviction, which served as the predicate for a 16-

level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A). He also contends that the

district court erred by failing to vary downward based on a proposed amendment to

U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b) that was pending at the time he was sentenced.

In light of the totality of the circumstances, including the seriousness of

Suarez-Aguilar’s prior conviction and his multiple prior deportations, the withinGuidelines sentence is not substantively unreasonable. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a);

Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Furthermore, the district court’s

failure to grant the requested variance to reflect the proposed amendment to the

Guidelines did not result in a substantively unreasonable sentence. See United

States v. Ruiz-Apolonio, 657 F.3d 907, 918 (9th Cir. 2011) (“That the Commission

has promulgated a not-yet-adopted amendment that is very likely to be adopted and

that would result in reduced Guidelines ranges does not render a district court’s

failure to grant a variance substantively unreasonable.”).

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>   1


EXHIBIT 23


               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


Hemagen Diagnostics, Inc.
Columbia, Maryland

          We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectus
constituting a part of the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 33-80009,
333-06147, 33-40606 and the Registration Statement on Form S-8 File No.
333-03718) of our report dated December 12, 2000, relating to the consolidated
financial statements of Hemagen Diagnostics, Inc. appearing in Hemagen's Annual
Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended September 30, 2000. Our report contains
an explanatory paragraph regarding uncertainties as to the Company's ability to
continue in business.





                                           BDO Seidman, LLP



Washington D.C.
December 12, 2000