alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         352,259
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  597,990
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    947,185
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,935,169
<PP&E>                                         394,660
<DEPRECIATION>                                 180,457
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,155,472
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          493,324
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,485
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,441,597
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,155,472
<SALES>                                        736,270
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               736,270
<CGS>                                          561,112
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  146,307
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,915
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 19,354
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,945
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             16,409
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    16,409
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Richard Diaz, Appellant.

Submitted August 13, 2012;

decided August 28, 2012

*984Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Richard M. Greenberg, Esq., Office of the Appellate Defender, 11 Park Place, Suite 1601, New York, NY 10007 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
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



     In  connection  with the  Annual  Report  of  Atwood  Oceanics,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-K for the period ended  September 30, 2005, as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
John R. Irwin, 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 the best of my knowledge:

(1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



Date:    December 14, 2005            /S/ JOHN R. IRWIN
                                      -----------------
                                      John R. Irwin
                                      President and Chief Executive Officer
1

The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-4001

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

Brian R. Shafer, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: April 7, 2006 

Filed: April 18, 2006

___________

Before RILEY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Brian R. Shafer (Shafer) appeals his conviction and sentence entered by the

district court1

 upon his guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). His counsel filed a brief under Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing Shafer’s guilty plea was not knowing and

voluntary because during the plea colloquy, Shafer was under the influence of

prescription drugs. In a pro se supplemental brief, Shafer appears to join counsel in
-2-

arguing the prescription drugs compromised his ability to plead guilty voluntarily, and

argues additionally (1) his trial counsel and the government conspired against him in

sharing trial information, (2) prosecutorial misconduct occurred during discovery, (3)

he was wrongly charged and convicted, and (4) he received ineffective assistance of

counsel.

First, the attack on the voluntariness of Shafer’s plea is not properly before us,

because he failed to first raise the issue in the district court by seeking to withdraw his

guilty plea; rather, at sentencing Shafer affirmatively represented he wished to

maintain his plea. See United States v. Murphy, 899 F.2d 714, 716 (8th Cir. 1990)

(claim of involuntary guilty plea “first must be presented to the district court and [is]

not cognizable on direct appeal”). Second, Shafer’s guilty plea forecloses all pre-plea

non-jurisdictional attacks on his conviction, including prosecutorial misconduct. See

United States v. Beck, 250 F.3d 1163, 1166 (8th Cir. 2001). Third, we find nothing

in the record to indicate Shafer was wrongly charged or convicted. Finally, Shafer’s

ineffective-assistance claim is not properly before us either, as ineffective-assistance

claims generally must be raised in 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings before the district

court where the record can be properly developed. See United States v. Hughes, 330

F.3d 1068, 1069 (8th Cir. 2003).

Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
#### Miami County Bar Association *v.*Hallows.

[Cite as *Miami Cty. Bar Assn. v. Hallows*(1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 75.]

*76(No. 96-2429

Submitted December 11, 1996

Decided March 26, 1997.)

*77
      *Roger Luring,*for relator.

*De Wayne Smith,*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

Public trust in the legal profession is tested daily in the service provided by each individual lawyer to his or her clients. When a lawyer, who has taken responsibility for a client’s papers or property, commingles client funds or dissipates that property, that lawyer not only ill serves the client but also contributes to the erosion of public trust in the profession. *Columbus Bar Assn, v. Brooks*(1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 524, 664 N.E.2d 900.

This disciplinary proceeding involves a respondent whose clients expected him to promptly remit settlement funds and to handle estate funds with the utmost care. Respondent not only failed to remit client funds promptly when requested but also filed false reports with the probate court and misappropriated moneys in two guardianship estates.

Respondent has received criminal penalties for his fraud and defalcation. It is our duty not to punish further for these infractions but, as required by our power of superintendence of the practice and profession of law in this state, to determine whether and on what conditions respondent should remain on the roll of those attorneys permitted to practice in Ohio.

During the past year we have said at least three times that the appropriate sanction for misappropriation of client funds is disbarment. *Columbus Bar Assn. v. Sterner*(1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 164, 167, 672 N.E.2d 633, 635; *Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Michaels*(1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 645, 647, 665 N.E.2d 676, 677; *Disciplinary Counsel v. Connaughton*(1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 644, 645, 665 N.E.2d 675, 676. This is not a new sanction. We have imposed this penalty for at least twenty-two years. Cf. *Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Ostrander*(1975), 41 Ohio St.2d 93, 70 O.O.2d 173, 322 N.E.2d 653.

In this case the board found mitigating circumstances and recommended a penalty of indefinite suspension. In a recent similar case which could otherwise have warranted disbarment, we gave weight to the attorney’s sincere attempt to overcome his alcoholism and the board’s recommendation of leniency. *Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Keeler*(1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 471, 475, 668 N.E.2d 471, 474. For a similar reason, we adopt the recommendation of the board and the respondent is hereby indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs are taxed to the respondent.

*Judgment accordingly.*

Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

*78Cook, J., dissents.

Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, J., not participating.

Cook, J.,

dissenting. The thefts by this respondent involve a level of volition that, in my view, is unmitigated by his addiction to alcohol. I would, therefore, disbar respondent.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1998
<CASH>                                       4,600,425
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                              269,687,559
<ALLOWANCES>                                12,017,062
<INVENTORY>                                156,050,736
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           585,536,641
<PP&E>                                     456,927,018
<DEPRECIATION>                             218,047,238
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           1,011,879,296
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      479,720,299
<BONDS>                                    230,853,038
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                 418,274,289
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             1,011,879,296
<SALES>                                  4,417,255,818
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         4,490,189,399
<CGS>                                    4,376,526,323
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            53,824,262
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             1,042,062
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          12,209,300
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             47,629,514
<INCOME-TAX>                                 5,300,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         42,329,514
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                42,329,514
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


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


     The  undersigned  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 the
undersigned's  best knowledge and belief,  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the Geodyne  Energy Income  Limited  Partnership  II-C ("Issuer") for the period
ending  March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"):

      (a)   fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
            the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
      (b)   the  information  contained in the Report  fairly  presents,  in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Issuer.

      Dated this 13th day of May, 2005.

                                    GEODYNE ENERGY INCOME LIMITED
                                    PARTNERSHIP II-C
                                    ("Issuer")

                                    //s// Dennis R. Neill
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Dennis R. Neill
                                    President (Chief Executive Officer)

                                    //s// Craig D. Loseke
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Craig D. Loseke
                                    Chief Accounting Officer
                                    (Chief Financial Officer)


      A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906 has
been  furnished to Geodyne  Energy Income  Limited  Partnership II-C and will be
retained by Geodyne Energy Income Limited  Partnership II-C and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 168 

Expressing support for designation of March 6, 2019, as ‘‘National Beauty 

and Wellness Education Day’’ by promoting awareness of the goals 

and ideals of institutions of higher education that educate the Nation’s 

licensed beauty and wellness professionals. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 4, 2019 

Mr. LAWSON of Florida submitted the following resolution; which was referred 

to the Committee on Education and Labor 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for designation of March 6, 2019, as 

‘‘National Beauty and Wellness Education Day’’ by promoting awareness of the goals and ideals of institutions 

of higher education that educate the Nation’s licensed 

beauty and wellness professionals. 

Whereas employment of— 

(1) barbers, hairstylists, and cosmetologists is projected to grow 13 percent from 2016 to 2026—faster 

than the average for all occupations and almost double 

the national average for all occupations of 7 percent as 

reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics; 

(2) massage therapists is projected to grow 26 percent from 2016 to 2026—much faster than the average 

for all occupations and more than 3.7 times the national 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 168 IH 

average for all occupations as reported by the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics; and 

(3) skincare specialists (estheticians) is projected to 

grow 14 percent from 2016 to 2026—faster than average 

for all occupations and double the national average for all 

occupations of 7 percent as reported by the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics; 

Whereas all States require barbers, hairstylists, cosmetologists, and skincare specialists to be licensed, and to qualify for a license, candidates are required to graduate 

from a State-approved barber or cosmetology program 

and then pass a State-administered licensing exam; 

Whereas most States regulate massage therapy and require 

massage therapists to complete a postsecondary education program of 500 or more hours of study and experience—in most cases leading to the candidate obtaining 

a license or certification; and 

Whereas, without proper education in health and safety requirements, applied technical abilities, and acquired soft 

skills, individuals seeking to enter these in-demand occupations would be unable to acquire the knowledge and 

proficiency required to successfully pass the required 

exam and enter the workforce: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) supports the goals and ideals of National 

3 Beauty and Wellness Education Day; 

4 (2) recognizes that population growth will lead 

5 to greater demand for beauty and wellness services; 

6 (3) understands that proper education is the 

7 key to ensuring that the expectations of the State, 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 168 IH 

1 the student, and the future employer of the licensed 

2 professionals are fulfilled; and 

3 (4) commends the efforts of the institutions of 

4 higher education that educate the Nation’s licensed 

5 beauty and wellness professionals. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSKBCP9HB2PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jamel Walston, Appellant.

Submitted May 13, 2013;

decided May 30, 2013

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Lynn WL. Fa-hey, Esq., Appellate Advocates, 2 Rector Street, 10th Floor, New York, NY 10006 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
EXHIBIT 32.2

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER            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 Atwood Oceanics, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James M. Holland, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the            Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:             
|  | (1)      | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--|-----------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  | (2)      | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for the periods presented. |
|--|-----------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 
|                               |  |  |  |                           |  |
|-------------------------------|--|--|--|---------------------------|--|
| DATE:  November 25, 2008 |  |  |  | /S/ JAMES M. HOLLAND      |  |
|                               |  |  |  | James M. Holland          |  |
|                               |  |  |  | Senior Vice President and |  |
|                               |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer   |  |
FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS 

INFORMATION SHEET BY COURT REPORTERS 

You are expected to file the reporter’s record by the original due date. See Tex. R. App. P.35. If 

a reporter determines that the due date may not be met, please advise the Clerk of the Court of 

Appeals immediately in writing, stating the reason and the due date by which the record will be 

filed. Generally speaking, for good cause shown, the Court will grant no more than two 

extensions from the original record due date, each extension not to exceed 30 days in regular 

appeals and 10 days in accelerated appeals for a total period not to exceed 60 days in regular 

appeals and 20 days in accelerated appeals.

 

Appellate Case Number: Trial Court Case Number: 

(1) Is there a Reporter's Record? Y N

(2) Are you the only court reporter involved in this appeal? Y N

If not, please provide the names and addresses of all other court

reporters below.

(3) Has the appellant requested that the reporter’s record be prepared or 

has the trial court ordered that the record be prepared?

 Y N

(4) Please select from the following options:

 A. The appellant has paid for the record.

 B. The appellant has made arrangements to pay for the record

 C. The appellant is appealing as indigent.

 D. The appellant has not paid or made arrangements to pay for the

 record and is not appealing as indigent.

(5) Extension (fill out if extension is required for any reason other than payment)

I was unable to file the record in this appeal by ________. I expect the record 

in this appeal to be approximately _______ pages. The record covers 

_______days of testimony. I believe that I can file the record by _________. I 

ask that the court grant an extension until that time for filing the record.

Additional Comments: ___________________________________________

Court Reporter's Signature, Full Address, Email Address and Telephone Number: 

_______________________________________________________________________ 

_______________________________________________________________________

 FILED IN 14th COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 7/10/2015 11:38:45 AM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
# FY21 Total Appropriation

NINDS receives its budget from the United States Congress as part of the federal budget process through appropriations for the Department of Health and Human Services and NIH.

### Current Fiscal Year (FY 2021) Budget

On December 27, 2020, Congress authorized H.R. 133 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, resulting in a full year appropriation for NINDS and NIH. The map below describes the allocation of funds appropriated to NINDS in P.L. 116-94.  Although a significant portion of that budget is appropriated to extramural research, other parts of the budget fund specific extramural research initiatives and efforts that are supported by NINDS. Hover over an area of the budget to learn more about it.  Click onto an area of the budget to learn additional details, including the prior year expenditures.

### 

### Past Budget Total Appropriations 

FY20 Total Appropriation
> 
NINDS Budget & Appropriations

FY20 Total Extramural Research Expenditures

RPG Success Rates and Payline

FY20 Funding Outcomes Data
# Court of Appeals

**First District of Texas**

BILL OF COSTS

No. 01

- 14

- 00193

- CV

Fertitta Hospitality, LLC

v

.

Daniel Cole O'Balle

NO. 2010

- 64803 IN THE 11TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS C OUNTY

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID/DUE STATUS PAID BY

SUPP CLK RECOR D

MT FEE

MT FEE

MT FEE

MT FEE

MT FEE

MT FEE

COPIES

CLK RECORD

FILING

STATEWIDE EFILING $20.00 $10.00 $10.00
$10.00 $10.00
$10.00 $10.00
$1.00 $830.00 $175.00
$20.00 08/05/2014

08/01/2014

08/01/2014

07/10/2014

04/29/2014

03/26/2014

03/25/20 14

03/20/2014

03/11/2014

03/07/2014

03/07/2014 PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID

PAID

PAID

E

- PAID

E

- PAID APE

ANT

APE

ANT

APE

ANT

ANT

APE

ANT

ANT

ANT



### The costs incurred on appeal to the First Court of Appeals Houston, Texas are $1,10 6 .00.

Court costs in this case have been taxed in this Court’s judgment

I, Christopher A. Prine
, Clerk o f the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas, do herebycertify that this is a true statement of the costs of appeal in this case.

IN TESTI MONY WHEREOF, witness my
hand and the seal of the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas, this January 2 3 , 2015

.