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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          57,134
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,458,601
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,515,735
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,400
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,514,335
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,515,735
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,650
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (5770)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (5770)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (5770)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.37)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.37)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                         5
       
<S>                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                      Mar-31-1999
<CASH>                            1,981,019
<SECURITIES>                      000
<RECEIVABLES>                     50,000
<ALLOWANCES>                      000
<INVENTORY>                       000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  2,331,019
<PP&E>                            25,987,000
<DEPRECIATION>                    20,704,366
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    7,613,653
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             2,577,218
<BONDS>                           000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>             000
<PREFERRED>                       000
<COMMON>                          000
<OTHER-SE>                        5,036,435
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      7,613,653
<SALES>                           000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  1,141,800
<CGS>                             000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  973,489
<LOSS-PROVISION>                  117,161
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   51,150
<INCOME-TAX>                      000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               51,150
<DISCONTINUED>                    000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                   000
<CHANGES>                         000
<NET-INCOME>                      51,150
<EPS-PRIMARY>                     .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                     .01
        

</TABLE>
----

Exhibit 31.1 

CERTIFICATIONS 

I, Ronald A. Durando, certify that: 1. I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q of mPhase Technologies, Inc.; 

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

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

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

a. Designed such disclosure controlsand procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared; 

b. Evaluated the effectiveness of ethregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions 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 anychange in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): 

a. All significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrants’ ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and 

b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting. 

/s/ Ronald A. Durando 

Ronald A. Durando Chief Executive Officer 

February 13, 2008 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                          5
<CIK>                              0000850506     
<NAME>                             GEODYNE ENERGY INCOME LTD PARTNERSHIP II-F
                                    
<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                     JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                       MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                   325,264
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                            373,069
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         698,333
<PP&E>                                11,697,278
<DEPRECIATION>                         9,356,884
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         3,095,594
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     64,439
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                             3,003,248
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           3,095,594
<SALES>                                  432,069
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         555,355
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            267,729
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          287,626
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      287,626
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                             287,626
<EPS-PRIMARY>                               1.57
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        
 

</TABLE>
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 6093** 

LAWRENCE LEO HAWKINS, JR. , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. UNKNOWN , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk

. Rebecca Beach Smith , Chief District Judge. ( 2:13

- cv - 00027

- RBS

- DEM )

Submitted : May 22, 2014 Decided: May 29, 2014

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and HAMILTON and DAVIS , Senior Circuit Judges.

Remanded by un published per curiam opinion

. Lawrence Leo Hawkins, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Lawrence Leo Hawkins, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court ’ s order dismissing his action for failure to comply with its order to particularize his claims. We remand for consideration of whether reopening of the appeal period is merited. Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, and unless the district court extend s or reopens the appeal period, the notice of appeal must be filed no more than sixty days after the entry of the district court ’ s final judgment or order

. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisd ictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The district court ’ s order was entered on the docket

on July 31, 2013

. Hawkins filed his notice of appeal on December 10, 2013. 1 Regardless of which appellate period applies

1 Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266, 270 (1988).3 to this appeal, 2 Hawkins’ notice of appeal is clearly untimely. However, under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6), the district court may reopen the time to file an appeal if : (1) the moving party did not receive notice of entry of judgment within twenty

- one days after ent ry ; (2) the motion is filed within 180 days of entry of judgment or within fourteen days of receiving notice from the court, whichever is earlier ; and (3) no party would be prejudiced. In his notice of appeal , Hawkins stated that he did not receive notic e of the distr ict court’ s order dismissing his action, and he suggests he has had difficulty receiving his mail while incarcerated

. Moreover, the district court’s docket indicates that the district court’s dismissal order was returned to the district cour t as undeliverable. Accordingly, w e remand for the limited purpose of permitting the district court to determine whether Hawkins’ notice of appeal should be construed as a motion to reopen the appeal period, and if so, whether reopening is merited. The r ecord, as supplemented, will then be returned to this c ourt for further consideration.

REMANDED

2 I t is unclear whether the United States or i ts officer or agency is a party to Hawkins’ action

.
Exhibit 99(b)

                            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 Annual  Report of The Black & Decker  Corporation  (the
"Corporation")  on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended  December  31,  2002,  as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  I, Michael D. Mangan,  Chief Financial  Officer of the  Corporation,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, 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 the
Corporation.

/s/ MICHAEL D. MANGAN
------------------------------------
Michael D. Mangan
Chief Financial Officer
February 14, 2003
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Kneitel, Appellant.

[822 NYS2d 602]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.), rendered November 14, 2002, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (14 counts), menacing in the third degree, and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Pincus, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress certain physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his application to reopen the pretrial suppression hearing. A court may reopen a hearing during trial where, inter alia, the defendant makes a showing “that additional pertinent facts have been discovered by the defendant which he [or she] could not have discovered with reasonable diligence before the determination of the [original suppression] motion” (CPL 710.40 [4]). Here, the additional facts concerned the location where the defendant parked his car prior to his arrest. Since this was a fact of which the defendant is presumed to have knowledge, the application to reopen the hearing was properly denied *(see People v Young,*278 AD2d 437 [2000]; *People v Hankins,*265 AD2d 572 [1999]).

The issue of legal sufficiency is unpreserved for appellate review and the defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit or do not require reversal. Schmidt, J.E, Santucci, Fisher and Covello, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 23.01

                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
                              
                              
  We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration 
statements of Digital Link Corporation and Subsidiaries on Form S-8 
(File Nos. 33-74666 and 33-95176) of our reports dated January 21, 1997,  
on our audits of the financial statements and financial statement schedule 
of Digital Link Corporation and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 1996 and 
1995, and for the years ended December 31, 1996, 1995 and 1994 which 
reports are included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.




                                        COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P. 


San Jose, California
March 28, 1997
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 02-2461

___________ Gerry C. DuBose, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Janet E. Andrews, individually and as * an agent of Hennepin County Medical * [UNPUBLISHED] Center and Hennepin Faculty * Associates; Ngoci J. Wamuo, * individually and as an agent of * Hennepin County Medical Center and * Hennepin Faculty Associates; Hennepin * County Medical Center; Hennepin * Faculty Associates, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: September 12, 2002 Filed: October 2, 2002

___________ Before WOLLMAN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.1 The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Jonathan G. Lebedoff, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. -2- Gerry DuBose appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal without prejudice of his civil complaint. After careful de novo review, we agree with the district court’s conclusion that DuBose’s complaint did not state a cause of action actionable in federal court. Further, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of DuBose’s motion for leave to amend his complaint, or in the denial of his postjudgment motion seeking reconsideration of the court’s judgment. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
EXHIBIT 99.1
------------





                       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 Landauer, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Brent A. Latta, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section  1350, as adopted pursuant to Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (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/  Brent A Latta
                                  ------------------------------
                                  Brent A. Latta
                                  Chief Executive Officer
                                  May 12, 2003




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Landauer, Inc. and will be retained by Landauer, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
H. Res. 32 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

January 9, 2019. 

Resolved, That the following named Members be, and are 

hereby, elected to the following committees of the House of 

Representatives: 

COMMITTEE ON ETHICS: Mr. Marchant. 

COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION: Mr. Rodney 

Davis of Illinois. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
----

Exhibit 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of mPhase Technologies, Inc., a NewJersey corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10Q for the quarter ended September30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"),I, Martin S Smiley, Chief Financial Officer of the Company certify, pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that tohis knowledge: 

1. 

The Report fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and 

2. 

The information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Company. 

/s/ Martin S. Smiley                Martin S.SmileyChief Financial Officer 

November 13, 2009 

----
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-50846

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.

AGUSTIN SERGIO DELEON GARZA, also known as Agustin S. Garza, also 

known as Agustin Garza, also known as Agustin DeLeon Garza,

Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:14-CR-247-1

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Agustin Sergio DeLeon Garza appeals the within-guidelines life sentence 

imposed following his conviction of seven counts related to kidnaping, ransom, 

and money laundering. He contends that his sentence is substantively 

unreasonable because it is greater than needed to achieve the sentencing goals 

of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 8, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-50846 Document: 00514025500 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/08/2017
No. 15-50846

2

Because DeLeon Garza did not raise a substantive reasonableness 

objection in the district court, his arguments, as he concedes, are reviewed for 

plain error only, based on this court’s precedent. See United States v. 

Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 361 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. 

Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391 (5th Cir. 2007). Nevertheless, DeLeon Garza argues 

that plain error review should not apply to preserve the issue for further 

review. To establish plain error, he must show that the district court 

committed a clear or obvious error that affected his substantial rights. See 

Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). Even if he does so, we will 

correct the error only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public 

reputation of the proceedings. Id.

DeLeon Garza has not shown error, plain or otherwise, in connection 

with his sentence. We presume that a within-guidelines sentence, such as 

DeLeon Garza’s, is reasonable. See United States v. Jenkins, 712 F.3d 209, 214 

(5th Cir. 2013). A defendant can rebut the presumption only if he shows that 

the district court ignored an important sentencing factor, afforded substantial 

weight to an irrelevant or inappropriate factor, or clearly erred in weighing the 

factors. Id. DeLeon Garza’s arguments do not make this showing. Rather, he 

has shown only a disagreement with the propriety of the sentence imposed, 

which does not suffice to show substantive unreasonableness. See United 

States v. Ruiz, 621 F.3d 390, 398 (5th Cir. 2010). The judgment of the district 

court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-50846 Document: 00514025500 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/08/2017