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


        <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-START>                                  JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                    DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                               25,386
<SECURITIES>                                         99,228
<RECEIVABLES>                                        31,596
<ALLOWANCES>                                          1,038
<INVENTORY>                                          22,361
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    181,813
<PP&E>                                               57,032
<DEPRECIATION>                                       36,168
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      240,947
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                35,223
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                                 57
<OTHER-SE>                                          204,535
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        240,947
<SALES>                                             111,621
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    111,621
<CGS>                                                57,366
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        57,366
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     53,995
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       58
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       4,892
<INCOME-TAX>                                            783
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   4,109
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                          4,109
<EPS-BASIC>                                            0.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          0.07




</TABLE>
#### Shannon Lynn SHARP, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Nathaniel QUARTERMAN, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellant.

No. 04-20888

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 7, 2006.

*476Shannon Lynn Sharp, Bryan, TX, pro se.

Susan Frances San Miguel, Office of the Attorney General Postconviction Litigation Div., Austin, TX, for Respondent-Appellant.

Before DeMOSS, STEWART and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Nathaniel Quarterman appeals the judgment granting 28 U.S.C. § 2254 relief to Shannon Lynn Sharp, Texas prisoner # 1167113, on his claim that the evidence was insufficient to support his prison disciplinary conviction for trafficking and trading. Affording the issue de novo review, we reverse and remand. *See Hudson v. Johnson,*242 F.3d 534, 535 (5th Cir.2001).

Due process requires, at a minimum, that the record contain “some evidence” supporting the disciplinary decision. *Morgan v. Dretke,*433 F.3d 455, 457 (5th Cir. 2005). The “some evidence” standard is extremely deferential. *Id.*Therefore, on federal habeas review, we do not assess the weight of the evidence, *Hudson,*242 F.3d at 537, and will overturn a prison disciplinary proceeding only where no evidence in the record supports the decision. *Broussard v. Johnson,*253 F.3d 874, 877 (5th Cir.2001).

The district court found that Officer Brooks, the charging officer, had mischaracterized offender Ian Smelser’s written statement as a “confession” based on the court’s reading of that statement. The district court held that because Smelser’s statement was not a confession, neither the statement nor Brooks’ representation to the hearing officer that Smelser had confessed qualified as “some evidence” to support Sharp’s conviction.

At the prison disciplinary hearing, however, Brooks testified that during his interview with Smelser, Smelser confessed that he did drawings for money, which he sent to his family, and that he relied on Sharp to send the drawings to the “free world.” This information was not contained in Smelser’s written statement. Additionally, Brooks testified that Smelser’s credibility was at issue because when initially questioned, Smelser denied having any knowledge of the third-party deposit at issue; however, Smelser’s commissary spending *477history indicated that he indeed had knowledge of the deposit. Finally, Sharp admitted during the hearing that “[Smelser] was right that he does it [i.e., drawings] for money.”

Consequently, based on the testimony adduced at the disciplinary hearing, there was “some evidence” to support a finding that Smelser had received third-party compensation from Sharp’s mother in exchange for drawings. Given the deference owed to prison disciplinary decisions, particularly where live testimony is concerned, the district court erred in reversing the decision. *See Broussard,*253 F.3d at 877.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-12-0000763

09-JUL-2015

09:47 AM
#### Joseph O. Yebo, Appellant, v Helene M. Cuadra, Respondent.

Submitted September 10, 2012;

decided November 20, 2012

*906Motion 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. Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.
FILIPPO TERESI, HUSBAND

, Appellant,

v.

SHERRI LEE TERESI, WIFE

, Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 3239

_____________________________/

Opinion filed April 15, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Linda F. McCallum , Judge

. Stephanie L. Murphy, of The Murphy Law Group, Sarasota , for Appellant.

Corrine A. Bylund, of Zisser, Brown, Nowlis & Cabrey, P.A., Jacksonville , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, the former husband, raises six issues in this appeal from a

supplemental final judgment in a dissolution proceeding. Appellee, the formerwife, concedes that the trial c ourt erred in ordering her to pay retroactive child

support for the parties’ remaining minor child only through July 2011 when the

child turned 18 because the child did not graduate from high school until June

2012. See §§ 61.13(1)(a)1.a., 743.07(2)

, Fla. Stat. Accordingly, on that issue, we

reverse and remand for recalculation of the amount the former wife owed the

former husband for retroactive child support through June 2012. On all of the

other issues raised by the former husband, we affirm without d iscussion.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part, and REMANDED with

instructions.

WETHERELL, ROWE, and MAKAR, JJ., CONCUR.

2
<PAGE>




                                  Exhibit 24(i)



                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectuses
constituting part of the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 33-31587 and
No. 33-31588) of Oak Hill Sportswear Corporation of our report dated March 20,
1997 appearing on page 9 of this Form 10-K. We also consent to the incorporation
by reference of our report on the Financial Statement Schedule, which appears on
page 24 of this Form 10-K.








PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP

New York, New York
March 20, 1997





















                                 27 OF 27 PAGES
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OFTHE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of mPhase Technologies,
Inc., a New Jersey corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10Q for the quarter
ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the "Report"), I, Ronald A. Durando, Chief Executive Officer of the Company
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18U.S.C.
Section 1350), 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.

/s/ Ronald A.
DurandoRonald A. Durando Chief Executive Officer

February 12, 2010

---
**Certification Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code,**

**Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002**

 

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of New Era Marketing, Inc. (“New Era”) on Form 10-QSB for the three-month period ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Joseph MacKenzie, President and Chief Executive Officer of New Era, and I, Joseph MacKenzie, Principal Financial Officer of New Era, certify, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, 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 results of operations of New Era. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Date: August 23, 2006

 

/s/ Joseph MacKenzie

Joseph MacKenzie

President and Chief Executive Officer 

 

 

Date: August 23, 2006

 

/s/ Joseph MacKenzie

Joseph MacKenzie

Principal Financial Officer
#### Gardner *v.*Prescott *et al.*

*(Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts.*

May 2, 1888.)

Patents for Inventions—Infringement—Carpet Sweepers.

Letters patent No. 186,895, issued January 30, 1877, to Alexander Stewart, for improvements in carpet sweepers, consist of the following claim: “The combination, with the frame of a carpet sweeper and its brush, the spindle, A, attached to the frame, and working longitudinally therein, to support or release the brush, and operated by the spring, D, and handle, B, substantially as set forth. ” *Held,*that the handle was one of the material elements of the combination, and that defendants’ machine, in which they used the spring or its equivalent, but not the handle, was not an infringement.

In Equity. On bill for infringement of patent, brought* by Henry Gardner against John W. Prescott *et al.*

*W. A. Madeod,*for complainant.

*J. M. Van Fleet,*for defendants.

Colt, J.

In this suit the respondents are charged with the infringement of letters patent No. 186,895, issued January 80, 1877, to Alexander Stewart, for .improvements in carpet sweepers. The invention consists in the use in a carpet sweeper of a fixed spindle, which supports the brush-roller, and to which a spring is attached, the function of the spring being to hold the spindle in place, and to allow it to be drawn back so as to free the brush-roller. The patentee disclaims “all devices *517in which the spindle revolves with the brush, and is removable from the frame with it, such devices in various forms being common and well known.” The claim is as follows:

“Tlie combination, with the frame of a carpet sweeper and its brush, the spindle, A, attached to the frame, and working longitudinally therein, to support or release tlie brush, and operated by the spring, D, and handle, E, substantially as set forth.”

In view of the state of the art, it must be admitted that the scope of this invention is very narrow. It will be observed that the handle, E, by which the spring is operated, is made one of tlie elements of the claim. In defendants’ machine they uso a spring or its equivalent, but not the handle. Unless we can broaden the claim of the patent so as to leave out the handle as a part of the combination, it is clear that the defendants do not infringe. This cannot be done, because it is apparent from the drawings and specification that the handle was one of the material elements of the patented combination. Nor can it be said that the spring in defendants’ device is the equivalent of the spring and handle of the Stewart sweeper. The spring in each device may he made to serve the double purpose of handle and spring, but that does not make the defendants’ spring tlie equivalent of a spring with a handle. Stewart chose to have tlie handle distinct from the spring, and he describes such handle in his patent, and makes it an element of his claim.

Without entering into the other defenses, I think for the reasons stated that the defense of non-infringement is well taken, and that the bill should be dismissed.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, April 05, 2018.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, April 05, 2018

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A18D0360. MARIA GONZALEZ v. NEW MAMMOTH DETAIL SALON, INC. et al. .

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

2016CV283770
Exhibit 31.4

Certification of Chief Financial Officer Required By

Exchange Act Rules 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a)

I, Christine A. Tsingos, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc.; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |  |  |  |  |                                                                        
|-------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: April 26, 2018 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Christine A.Tsingos                                                
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | Christine A. Tsingos, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
No. 01-14-00862-CR

In the 

Court of Appeals

for the 

First District of Texas

At Houston 



No. 1364692

In the 178th District Court 

Of Harris County, Texas 



ANDRE DEMONT THOMPSON 

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Appellee 



STATE’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

IN WHICH TO FILE AN APPELLATE BRIEF 



TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS:

COMES NOW THE STATE OF TEXAS, in accordance with Rules 

10.5(b)(1) and 38.6(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, and files this 

motion for an extension of time in which to file the State’s Brief in this cause, and, 

in support thereof, presents the following: 

ACCEPTED

01-14-00862-CR

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

7/13/2015 3:56:09 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 7/13/2015 3:56:09 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
1. On October 8, 2014, appellant was convicted by a jury of murder and

sentenced to 30 years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department 

of Criminal Justice. 

2. Appellant filed a timely written notice of appeal. 

3. The State’s Brief is due on July 22, 2015.

4. An extension of time in which to file the State’s Brief is requested until 

August 21, 2015. No previous extensions have been granted. 

5. The following facts are relied upon to show good cause for the requested 

extension:

i. The undersigned attorney has been engaged in the preparation 

of the State’s Brief in Cause No. AP-77,039, Jeffery Keith 

Prevost, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee, which was 

filed on June 30, 2015. 

ii. The undersigned attorney has been engaged in the preparation 

of the State’s Brief in Cause No. 14-14-00956-CR, Jessie 

Coleman, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee, which was 

filed on July 6, 2015.

iii. The undersigned attorney has been engaged in the preparation 

of the State’s Brief in Cause No. 01-14-01035-CR, Julia 

Juarez, Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee, which was 

filed on July 13, 2015.

iv. The undersigned attorney will be on vacation from July 14, 

2015 through July 22, 2015. 

WHEREFORE, the State prays that this Court will grant an additional 

extension of time until August 21, 2015 in which to file the State’s Brief in this 

cause.
Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Heather A. Hudson

HEATHER A. HUDSON

Assistant District Attorney

Harris County, Texas

1201 Franklin, Suite 600

Houston, Texas 77002

(713) 755-5826

State Bar No. 24058991

hudson_heather@dao.hctx.net

curry_alan@dao.hctx.net

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing instrument has been submitted 

for service by e-filing to the following address:

Franklin Bynum

2814 Hamilton Street

Houston, Texas 77002

Tel: (713) 343-8844

fgb@lawfgb.com

/s/ Heather A. Hudson

HEATHER A. HUDSON

Assistant District Attorney

Harris County, Texas

1201 Franklin, Suite 600

Houston, Texas 77002

(713) 755-5826

State Bar No. 24058991

Date: July 13, 2015
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of BreitBurn Energy Partners L.P (the
“Partnership”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Halbert S. Washburn, Chief Executive Officer of BreitBurn GP, LLC, the
general partner of the Partnership, 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 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
Partnership.





/s/ Halbert S. WashburnHalbert
      S. WashburnChief
      Executive Officer of BreitBurn GP, LLCDated:  November
      4, 2010
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 2, 2019

No. 04-18-00610-CV

Michael P. GEARY, Independent Executor of the Estate of Joseph William Geary, Jr., Deceased

and Falcon Energy, Inc.,

Appellants

v.

TOW BOW RANCH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Two Bow Management, LC and Ronald L.

Toms, Individually,

Appellees

From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015-CI-03609

Honorable David A. Canales, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The Appellant’s First Motion to Extend Time to File Reply Brief is hereby GRANTED.

Time is extended to August 26, 2019.

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 2nd day of August, 2019.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court

FILE COPY
##### 



Exhibit 4.15
  
  Terms of appointment as non-executive director
 Bank
 Disclosure of interests and other relevant information
  APRA
 Remuneration and expenses
 NEDSP




---



##### 



Term of appointment and vacation of office
       Board meetings




---



##### 



Board committees
  Time commitment envisaged
   Indemnity, insurance and access to Bank documents
  Charters and policies
  
    
    Board charter;
    
    Board Corporate Governance Guidelines;
    
    The Banks Constitution;
    
    Securities trading guidelines;
    
    Guidelines for communication between the Bank and shareholders;
    
    Taking of independent professional advice by directors;
    
    Code of ethics entitled Statement of Professional Practice;
    
    External Auditor Services Policy;
    
    Equal Employment Opportunity Policy; and
    
    Occupational Health and Safety Systems.
  Notification of interests to ASX




---



##### 



Continuing education arrangements
       John M Schubert
 Acknowledgment
  /s/ Frank Swan
    
    24/07/05Signature
    
    Date
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3188 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide an investment 

tax credit for biomass heating property. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 25, 2010 

Mrs. SHAHEEN (for herself, Ms. MURKOWSKI, Mr. BEGICH, and Mr. CRAPO) 

introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 

Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 

an investment tax credit for biomass heating property. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘American Renewable 

5 Biomass Heating Act of 2010’’. 

6 SEC. 2. INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT FOR BIOMASS HEATING 

7 PROPERTY. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (A) of section 

9 48(a)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining 

10 energy property) is amended by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3188 IS

1 of clause (vi), by inserting ‘‘or’’ at the end of clause (vii), 

2 and by inserting after clause (vii) the following new clause: 

3 ‘‘(viii) biomass heating property, in4 cluding boilers or furnaces which operate 

5 at output efficiencies greater than 75 per6 cent and which provide thermal energy in 

7 the form of heat, hot water, or steam for 

8 space heating, air conditioning, domestic 

9 hot water, or industrial process heat, but 

10 only with respect to periods ending before 

11 January 1, 2014,’’. 

12 (b) 30 PERCENT CREDIT.—Clause (i) of section 

13 48(a)(2)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 

14 amended by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of subclause (III) 

15 and by inserting after subclause (IV) the following new 

16 subclause: 

17 ‘‘(V) energy property described in 

18 paragraph (3)(A)(viii), and’’. 

19 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

20 this section shall apply to periods after the date of the 

21 enactment of this Act, in taxable years ending after such 

22 date, under rules similar to the rules of section 48(m) of 

23 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as in effect on the 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 3188 IS

1 day before the date of the enactment of the Revenue Rec2 onciliation Act of 1990). 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS