alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Gaming Revenues from 1996 to 2000 

NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING COMMISSION 

TRIBAL GAMING REVENUES 

Number of Revenues Percentage of Mean Median 

Gaming Revenue Range Operations (in thousands) Operations Revenues (in thousands) (in thousands) 

Gaming operation fiscal years ending in 2000 

$100 million and over 31 6,606,284 12% 62% 213,106 141,684 

$50 to $100 million 22 1,559,116 9% 15% 70,869 73,314 

$25 to $50 million 39 1,323,701 15% 12% 33,941 31,682 

$10 to $25 million 45 778,387 18% 7% 17,297 17,335 

$3 to $10 million 49 308,414 19% 3% 6,294 6,250 

Under $3 million 70 68,410 27% 1% 977 726 

256 10,644,312 

Gaming operation fiscal years ending in 1999 

$100 million and over 28 5,845,787 10% 60% 208,778 136,897 

$50 to $100 million 19 1,323,996 7% 14% 69,684 70,412 

$25 to $50 million 33 1,193,049 12% 12% 36,153 35,990 

$10 to $25 million 59 1,028,834 21% 11% 17,438 17,562 

$3 to $10 million 53 318,415 19% 3% 6,008 5,764 

Under $3 million 90 78,633 32% 1% 537 656 

282 9,788,714 

Gaming operation fiscal years ending in 1998 

$100 million and over 23 4,674,895 8% 55% 203,256 127,972 

$50 to $100 million 20 1,354,563 7% 16% 67,728 68,922 

$25 to $50 million 31 1,090,227 10% 13% 35,169 34,639 

$10 to $25 million 56 948,089 19% 11% 16,930 16,287 

$3 to $10 million 55 341,064 19% 4% 6,201 5,746 

Under $3 million 111 86,352 38% 1% 778 484 

296 8,495,190 

Gaming operation fiscal years ending in 1997 

$100 million and over 15 3,298,611 6% 44% 219,907 137,779 

$50 to $100 million 22 1,676,320 8% 22% 76,196 73,955 

$25 to $50 million 35 1,182,924 13% 16% 33,798 32,695 

$10 to $25 million 52 890,465 20% 12% 17,124 17,305 

$3 to $10 million 53 311,960 20% 4% 5,886 5,493 

Under $3 million 88 91,069 33% 1% 723 723 
265 7,451,349 

Gaming operation fiscal years ending in 1996 

$100 million and over 12 2,604,463 5% 41% 217,039 168,682 

$50 to $100 million 20 1,511,280 9% 24% 75,564 74,605 

$25 to $50 million 24 843,558 10% 13% 35,148 34,553 

$10 to $25 million 61 1,022,540 26% 16% 16,763 16,100 

$3 to $10 million 42 233,520 18% 4% 5,560 5,807 

Under $3 million 73 85,507 31% 1% 1,171 978 

232 6,300,868 

Source: Compiled from gaming operation audit reports received and entered by the NIGC through 6/30/2001.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jose Maldonado, Appellant.

Submitted August 26, 2013;

decided September 12, 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.
TDCJ Offender Details Page 1 of2 

T~XAS OEI?ARTMENT 017 CRIMINA'- JUSTICE [E) iNillt.i.tt4 Iii New Offender Search 

Offender Information Details 

Return to Search list 

SID Number: 

TDCJ Number: 

Name: 

Race: 

Gender: 

DOB: 

Maximum Sentence Date: 

Current Facility: 

Projected Release Date: 

Parole Eligibility Date: 

Offender Visitation Eligible: 

08148327 

01650624 

ATTERBURY,CHARLES JOSEPH JR 

w 

M 

1951-02-09 

2021-07-29 

RAMSEY I 

2021-07-29 

2015-07-29 

YES 

Information provided is updated once daily during weekdays and multiple times per day 

on visitation days. Because this information is subject to change, family members and 

friends are encouraged to call the unit prior to traveling for a visit. 

SPECIAL INFORMATION FOR SCHEDULED RELEASE: 

Scheduled Release Date: Offender is not scheduled for release at this time. 

Scheduled Release Type: Will be determined when release date is scheduled. 

Scheduled Release Location: Will be determined when release date is scheduled. 

Parole Review Information 

Offense History: 

Offense 

Date 

I 

Offense 

I 

Sentence 

Date 

I I ~ 

http://offender.tdcj.texas.gov/OffenderSearch/offenderDetail.action?sid=08148327 7/14/2015
Exhibit 32.1



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 Royal Equine Alliance Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Demitro Marianovich, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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, as amended; and



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



|Registrant               |  | Royal Equine Alliance Corporation                                                                     
|------------------------ |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                         |  |                                                                                                       
|Date:  November 14, 2008 |  | By:  /s/ Demitro Marianovich                                                                          
|                         |  |                                                                                                       
|                         |  | Demitro Marianovich
Chief Executive Officer (Principle Executive Officer, Principle Financial Officer)

15



|
|
Amendment to Banta Corporation Supplemental
                       Retirement Plan for Key Employees


             1.   The second sentence of section 3 of the SERP is amended to
   read as follows:

                  The term "Committee" shall mean the Compensation Committee
                  of the Board of Directors of the Corporation.

             2.   The third sentence of section 3 of the SERP is amended to
   read as follows:

                  Notwithstanding the foregoing, for purposes of this
                  Supplemental Plan, "Compensation" and "Average Monthly
                  Compensation" shall be:

                       (i)  deemed to include any non-deferred bonuses paid
                            after December 31, 1996 under the Banta
                            Corporation Management Incentive Award Plan, the
                            Banta Corporation Long Term Incentive Plan, or
                            any successor to any such plan;

                       (ii) deemed to include any amounts not otherwise
                            included therein or taken into account in the
                            calculation thereof which the Eligible Employee
                            would have received for such period but for his
                            election to defer such amount pursuant to the
                            Banta Corporation 1985 Deferred Compensation
                            Plan, the Banta Corporation 1988 Deferred
                            Compensation Plan, after December 31, 1996 the
                            bonus plans identified in (i) above, or any
                            successor to any such plan; and 

                      (iii) calculated without regard to the limitations
                            imposed by Section 401(a)(17) of the
                            Internal Revenue Code of 1986 on the amount
                            of compensation that may be taken into
                            account by plans qualifying under such
                            Section.


                                      * * *
# Funding Opportunities for Early Career Investigators

The following funding opportunities are available through NIMH for individuals in the early stages of their career.

NIMH strongly encourages prospective applicants to consult with the NIMH Research Training and Career Development Program Officer in the appropriate Division well in advance of preparing an application. The Program Officer will discuss the relevance of your proposed research to the Institute’s research priorities, provide guidance on the proposed research and training plans, and help identify the most appropriate funding opportunity for your research and training.

***** For a complete list of funded awards and grants please visit NIH RePORTER **.

“K” Career Award Policy Updates ** – Applicants are strongly encouraged to review career award policy updates before submitting an application. Failure to follow relevant policies may lead you to submit an incomplete application, which will not be reviewed. Relevant policy notices can also be found in the “Related Notices” section of each funding announcement.

### NIMH-Specific Policies and other Relevant Notices

                  - NIMH Career Development Program Guidance and Policies
                  - K Award Eligibility Extensions
                  - Guidance for Determining If Your Human Subjects’ Study is a Clinical Trial **

### Other Funding Opportunities at the NIMH and NIH

                  - NIMH Opportunities & Announcements
                  - NIMH Biobehavioral Research Awards for Innovative New Scientists **  (NIMH BRAINS) (R01)
                  - NIH Director’s New Innovator Award Program **  (DP2)
                  - R01 Research Project Grant **
                  - R03 Small Research Grant Program **
                  - R21 Exploratory/Developmental Grant **
----

Exhibit 32.1 

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/A for the quarter ended September30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I,Ronald A. Durando, Chief Executive Officer of the Company certify, pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18U.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/ Ronald A. Durando                               Ronald A. Durando Chief Executive Officer 

April 16, 2010

----
#### PILGRIM v. BIGGS et al.

No. 402.

District Court, E. D. Tennessee, S. D.

June 23, 1942.

John S. Wrinkle, of Chattanooga, Tenn., for plaintiff.

Harry J. Schaeffer and Joe V. Williams, both of Chattanooga, Tenn., for defendants.

DARR, District Judge.

The question presented is on motion to require the plaintiff to furnish a cost bond within a reasonable time, or on his failure to do so, to dismiss the case.

The case is filed upon an order of the court allowing the plaintiff to prosecute the suit on oath in forma pauperis. The grounds of the motion are based on two propositions:

*4941. That the plaintiff is a nonresident and under the laws of Tennessee would he required to furnish a cost bond.

2. That under the laws ' of Tennessee in cases of this kind it is provided that they cannot be brought and maintained on the oath provided for poor persons.

Under the United States Statute, codified at Section 832 of Title 28 U.S.C.A. and under the local rules of this court, Rule 32, provision is made that any citizen of the United States may, upon the order of the court, prosecute any suit or action in forma pauperis.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not limit the right of a citizen of the United States to litigate in forma pauperis. Middleton v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, 5 Cir., 1941, 119 F.2d 721.

 It seems to be conceded that the . Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S. C.A. following section 723c, superseded the Conformity Act, 28 U.S.C.A. § 724. But whether this be true or not, I think it rather plain that a construction of the statute itself, together with the authorities investigated, leads to the conclusion that there is .congressional directions to the federal courts to permit the prosecution of any suit by a citizen of the United States on the pauper’s oath.

The cases insisted upon as being an authority by the defendant in my judgment are not analogous. These cases appear to be where suit is brought by a nonresident without the offer of a pauper’s oath. The statute applying to this case was not for consideration.

It results that I am of the opinion that this plaintiff, a citizen of the United States, has a statutory right to prosecute this suit upon the pauper’s oath already given.

Order accordingly.
83, 23-0)

Stevie. Wifpe
CFBCOI”* wE50I2
ZAStham Upsit ie
LOGOS, PR S0N eA D

Lovelidy , Texts 25951

ee 1 RE
Weg Waly lo, Zorker erg
ay Wk i325
At: Abel feosta Clepk’
Court of Cemual Appeal of Texas Abel Acost, Clery
LQ. Box 12308 Cyptel Shahin
Austial, TEXAS 73 71/

BE:- (WR 93 osu -o1)
Pax Clerk, cae

Lhe. jruitpese of the5 SAPER.AS..LO. AM gay,

ON She Stafys, OF the Habous CORBUS WIRE = WR.

%3,236-01. M30. you Becewed Ye Memoraudam A Lao
til_yy20RI__ot. Hy folecsattens. TEAK yea LL

Sitzeeehp,

*1S59OLL.
cof
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

KENNETH B. DAVENPORT,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 280 MAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 15th day of July, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
The HONORABLE JOHN T. MAUGHMER, United States Magistrate

1

Judge for the Western District of Missouri, to whom the case was

referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

___________

No. 96-1057

___________

Eddie Williams, *

 *

Appellant, *

 * Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

 * Western District of Missouri.

Knob Noster School District, *

 * [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: October 4, 1996

 Filed: October 8, 1996

___________

Before BOWMAN, MAGILL, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Eddie Williams, a custodian at Knob Noster School District, brought

this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, claiming that the district

intentionally discriminated against him based on his race when it failed

to promote him to head custodian in 1994. The district court granted

1

summary judgment in favor of Knob Noster and denied Williams's subsequent

motion for reconsideration. Williams appeals both orders; we affirm.

As Williams offered no direct evidence of discrimination, the

district court properly analyzed his case under the three-stage 
-2-

analysis outlined in McDonnell Douglas v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), and

Williams's arguments to the contrary are without merit. See Shannon v.

Ford Motor Co., 72 F.3d 678, 682 (8th Cir. 1996). We assume, as the

district court did, that Williams established a prima facie case of race

discrimination.

The burden of production then shifted to Knob Noster to rebut the

presumption of discrimination with evidence that Williams was rejected for

a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason. See id. We conclude Knob Noster

sufficiently made such a showing in its motion for summary judgment,

providing documentation demonstrating Williams's attendance and performance

deficiencies, as well as affidavits from the relevant decisionmakers

expressing concern about Williams's ability to supervise and lead others.

When Knob Noster rebutted Williams's prima facie case of

discrimination, Williams then had the burden to come forward with evidence

which, if believed, would establish that intentional discrimination was the

true reason for Knob Noster's adverse employment action. After careful

review of the summary judgment record, and de novo review of the district

court's decision, we agree that summary judgment was appropriate because

Williams failed to present a submissible case of discrimination. His

contention that St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 113 S. Ct. 2742 (1993),

does not permit the grant of summary judgment in favor of an employer in

these circumstances is contrary to the law of this circuit. See Krenik v.

County of Le Sueur, 47 F.3d 953, 958-60 (8th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, we

affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### Paul NAGY, Appellant v. EMBASSY OF ROMANIA and Embassy of Hungary, Appellees.

No. 05-7097.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

July 3, 2006.

Rehearing En Banc Denied Oct. 2, 2006.

Paul Nagy, Butner, NC, pro se.

Before: GINSBURG, Chief Judge, and SENTELLE and GRIFFITH, Circuit Judges.

*JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by the appellant. It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed June 21, 2005, be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed the action against the embassies of two foreign states on the ground that the complaint failed to set forth a basis for the court’s jurisdiction.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. *8
      *See*Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(D) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT
OF 1934 FORTHE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998,
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         369,283
<SECURITIES>                                 2,151,896
<RECEIVABLES>                                  (5,139)
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               760,344
<PP&E>                                       1,505,976
<DEPRECIATION>                                 482,219
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,679,601
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          364,045
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,856,320
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,679,601
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                82,855
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               202,216
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,995
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (433,787)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (433,787)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (433,787)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (16.80)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (16.80)<F1>
<FN>
<F1>EPS IS NET LOSS PER $1,000 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP UNIT.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the Court has determined th a t

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit

No. 98-30074

RAMONA C. GROS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Louisiana

(96-CV-3323-D) February 8, 1999 Before GARWOOD, DAVIS and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * After reviewing the record in this case and considering the briefs and argument of counsel, we conclude that the order of the Commissioner is supported by substantial evidence.
AFFIRMED.
## THEA~TORNEYGENERAI, OF TEXAS

The Honorable Henry Wade District Attorney 6thFloor, Records Building Dallas, Texas 75202 Opinion No. H-989 Re: Necessity of inheritance tax receipt prior todistribution of estate of ward under section 408 of Probate Code. Dear Mr. Wade: You have requested our opinion concerning whether a court may order thedistribution of the estate of adeceased ward at the closing of a guardianship without finding that all inheritance taxes have been paid. Sections 404 and 405 of the Probate Code provide for a final accounting and the closing of aguardianship upon the death of award. Section 408(b) provides inpart:

Upon final settlement of an estate . . .the court shall order
. . .in case of adecedent, that apartition anddistribution be made among thepersons entitled to receive such estate. InEasterline v. Bean, 49S.W.Zd 427 (Tex.19321, the court quoted fromYoung v. Gray, 60Tex. 541 (18831, inwhich it was stated:

The estate of thedeceased ward should, like the estate of any other deceased person, be turned over as soon aspossible, by theguardian, to the administrator or such other person orpersons as by lawmay be determined tobe entitled to it. Easterline v. Bean, supra at 429. Where no administration Of award's estate 1snecessary, the closing of aguardianship pursuant to section 408 results in the final distribution of theward's estate. You have asked whether such a final distribution may bemade without a finding that all inheritance taxes due the State have been paid.

P. 4109The Honorable Henry Wade -page 2 (H-989)

Section 410 of the Probate Code provides inpart: [Nloestate of adecedent shall be closed, unless the final account shows, and the court finds, that all inheritance taxes due and owing to the State of Texas with respect to all interests and properties passing through the hands of the representative have been paid. Section 3(aa) of the Probate Code defines "representative" to include guardians. We note that under someprovisions of the Code there would generally be no closing of an estate; ,the court does not ascertain the contents of the estate or order a specific distribution thereof. See, SS 48, 89. However, when aguardianship is involved, section 408 requires a court to orderthe specific distribution of the estate. When no administration of theward's estate is to take place, inour view this distribution upon the closing of the guardianship isa closing of an estate within themeaning of section 410. Accordingly, inour opinion the final account of aguardian of adeceased ward must show, and a court must find, that all inheritance taxes due the State have been paid prior to the distribution of the estate to theward's heirs. SUMMARY Section 410 of the Probate Code requires that a court find that all inheritance taxes due the State have been paid prior to the court's distribution of award's estate the closing of a guardianship where the will not be further administered. Very truly yours, upon estate

APPROVED:

DAVID M. KENDALL, First Assistant

page 4110. .

Themorable Henry Wade -page 3 (H-989)

Opinion Committee km1

p. 4111