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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL DATA  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S  AUDITED FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  CONTAINED IN ITS REPORT ON FORM 10-K
FOR THE ANNUAL  PERIOD ENDED  DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000811562
<NAME> KIMMINS CORP.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          1,859,275
<SECURITIES>                                   22,022,296
<RECEIVABLES>                                  18,289,751
<ALLOWANCES>                                      739,223
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               47,205,113
<PP&E>                                         65,224,998
<DEPRECIATION>                                 19,578,279
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                114,300,471
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          41,151,712
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                            6,739
<OTHER-SE>                                     14,664,341
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  114,300,471
<SALES>                                        59,302,243
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               59,302,243
<CGS>                                          67,079,477
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  67,079,477
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                7,072,487
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              6,489,329
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (24,954,298)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (9,865,999)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (15,088,299)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 19,431,309
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                    4,343,010
<EPS-BASIC>                                        1.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        1.01


</TABLE>
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. AP-76,512

EX PARTE LASARO SANDOVAL, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 49,915-B IN THE 181ST DISTRICT COURT

FROM POTTER COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

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

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

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

and sentenced to fifty years’ imprisonment. The Seventh Court of Appeals dismissed his appeal.

Sandoval v. State, No. 07-06-00187-CR (Tex. App.–Amarillo 2006, no pet.). 

Applicant contends that he was denied his right to appeal. We remanded this application to

the trial court and directed it to make findings of fact and conclusions of law and to order trial and

appellate counsel to respond to Applicant’s claim.
2

On remand, the trial court concluded that Applicant was denied his right to a meaningful

appeal. Although there is no response from trial counsel in the supplemental record, we find that

Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of-time appeal of the judgment of conviction

in Cause No. 49,915-B from the 181st Judicial District Court of Potter County. Applicant is ordered

returned to that time at which he may give a written notice of appeal so that he may then, with the

aid of counsel, obtain a meaningful appeal. All time limits shall be calculated as if the sentence had

been imposed on the date on which the mandate of this Court issues. We hold that, should Applicant

desire to prosecute an appeal, he must take affirmative steps to file a written notice of appeal in the

trial court within 30 days after the mandate of this Court issues.

Delivered: March 9, 2011

Do Not Publish
Exhibit 32.1



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



In connection with the Amended Quarterly Report ofAtwood Minerals and Mining Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A-1 for the period ended May 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Walter Brenner, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Dated this 7th day of September, 2006.



| | WALTER BRENNER                                     
| | ---------------------------------------------------
| | Walter Brenner                                     
| | Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer



















---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6938

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JAPLIN CURETON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior

District Judge. (3:03-cr-00134-1; 3:07-cv-00213)

Submitted: August 23, 2007 Decided: August 30, 2007

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Japlin Cureton, Appellant Pro Se. Karen S. Marston, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Japlin Cureton seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is

not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Cureton has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
II 

Calendar No. 463 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3588 

To limit the moratorium on certain permitting and drilling activities issued 

by the Secretary of the Interior, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 14, 2010 

Mr. VITTER (for himself, Mr. CORNYN, and Mr. WICKER) introduced the 

following bill; which was read the first time 

JULY 15, 2010 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 

A BILL 

To limit the moratorium on certain permitting and drilling 

activities issued by the Secretary of the Interior, and 

for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON MORATORIUM ON CERTAIN 

4 PERMITTING AND DRILLING ACTIVITIES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The moratorium set forth in the 

6 decision memorandum of the Secretary of the Interior en7 titled ‘‘Decision memorandum regarding the suspension of 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3588 PCS

1 certain offshore permitting and drilling activities on the 

2 Outer Continental Shelf’’ and dated July 12, 2010, and 

3 any suspension of operations issued in connection with the 

4 moratorium, shall not apply to an applicant for a permit 

5 to drill if the Secretary determines that the applicant— 

6 (1) has complied with the notice entitled ‘‘Na7 tional Notice to Lessees and Operators of Federal 

8 Oil and Gas Leases, Outer Continental Shelf 

9 (OCS)’’ dated June 8, 2010 (NTL No. 2010–N05) 

10 and the notice entitled ‘‘National Notice to Lessees 

11 and Operators of Federal Oil and Gas Leases, Outer 

12 Continental Shelf (OCS)’’ dated June 18, 2010 

13 (NTL No. 2010–N06); and 

14 (2) has completed all required safety inspec15 tions. 

16 (b) DETERMINATION ON PERMIT.—Not later than 30 

17 days after the date on which the Secretary makes a deter18 mination that an applicant has complied with paragraphs 

19 (1) and (2) of subsection (a), the Secretary shall make 

20 a determination on whether to issue the permit. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS

tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 463 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3588 

A BILL 

To limit the moratorium on certain permitting and 

Interior, and for other purposes. drilling activities issued by the Secretary of the 

JULY 15, 2010 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Mark Russell, Respondent.

Submitted August 12, 2013;

decided September 12, 2013

Motion to vacate this Court’s July 19, 2013 dismissal order granted *[see*21 NY3d 1012 (2013)].
@article{1213776,
  author = {Yuxue Liang and Yamil Simon and Pedatsur Neta and Stephen E. Stein},
  title = {Unexpected Gas-Phase Nitrogen-Oxygen Smiles Rearrangement: CID of Deprotonated 2-(N-Methylanilino)ethanol and Morpholinylbenzoic Acid Derivatives},
  year = {2022},
  number = {33},
  month = {2022-10-21 04:10:00},
  publisher = {Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=935060},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.1021/jasms.2c00210},
  language = {en},
}
#### Orchard Motorcycle Distributors, Inc., et al., Appellants, v Morrison Cohen Singer & Weinstein, LLP Respondent.

[853 NYS2d 320]

The expert’s affidavit was enough to sustain defendant’s prima facie burden on the motion for summary dismissal of the *293legal malpractice claim, shifting the burden to plaintiffs *(see Tanel v Kreitzer & Vogelman,*293 AD2d 420, 421-422 [2002]). In opposition, plaintiffs failed to submit their own expert affidavit delineating the appropriate standard of professional care and skill to which defendant was required to adhere under the circumstances, which involved matters arising out of foreclosure actions, complex loan arrangements and bankruptcy proceedings that ordinary jurors could not evaluate based on their own knowledge and experience. There was no prima facie case for legal malpractice *(Merlin Biomed Asset Mgt., LLC v Wolf Block Schorr & Solis-Cohen LLP,*23 AD3d 243 [2005]; *Schadoff v Russ,*278 AD2d 222 [2000]). The record further demonstrates that the corporate plaintiffs’ dire financial situation was brought on by factors independent of defendant’s professional representation, rendering the claim that defendant proximately caused plaintiffs’ business failure speculative *(Brooks v Lewin,*21 AD3d 731 [2005], *lv denied*6 NY3d 713 [2006]).

These deficiencies were not cured by the affidavit of plaintiffs’ principal, which failed to establish that but for defendant’s alleged malpractice, the corporate plaintiffs would have successfully reorganized in chapter 11 proceedings *(Phillips-Smith Specialty Retail Group II v Parker Chapin Flattau & Klimpl,*265 AD2d 208 [1999], *lv denied*94 NY2d 759 [2000]; *Zarin v Reid & Priest,*184 AD2d 385 [1992]). Even if this Court were to consider plaintiffs “failure to advise” claim, an attorney’s selection of one among several reasonable courses of action does not constitute malpractice *(Rosner v Paley,*65 NY2d 736 [1985]).

The Bankruptcy Court’s orders approving defendant’s legal fees and expenses established defendant’s entitlement thereto *(Izko Sportswear Co., Inc. v Flaum,*25 AD3d 534 [2006]; *Siegel v Werner & Zaroff,*270 AD2d 119 [2000]). Coupled with defendant’s admission to an instance of overcharging plaintiffs for services and agreement to repay same, this warranted summary dismissal of the conversion claim.

Defendant’s right to fees and expenses having been established, it cannot be argued that it was unjustifiably enriched. Nor is there any basis in the record to warrant rescission of the retainer agreement between plaintiffs and defendant.

We have considered plaintiffs’ other arguments and find them without merit. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Gonzalez and Acosta, JJ. *[See*2007 NY Slip Op 32152(U).]
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-10668

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 4:14-cr-00020-MW-CAS-2

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

JAMES DERRICK BRASWELL, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

________________________

(July 16, 2015)

Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 15-10668 Date Filed: 07/16/2015 Page: 1 of 2 
2

Chet Kaufman, appointed counsel for James Derrick Braswell in this appeal, 

has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and has filed a 

brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 

493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s 

assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent 

examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s 

motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Braswell’s conviction and sentence is

AFFIRMED.

Case: 15-10668 Date Filed: 07/16/2015 Page: 2 of 2
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

# AGENCY:

Employment and Training Administration, Labor.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice announces a change in benefit period eligibility under the EB program for Colorado.

The following change has occurred since the publication of the last notice regarding Colorado's EB status:
      - Colorado has modified its law by adding a total unemployment rate (TUR) trigger retroactive to March 22, 2009. As a result, Colorado has retroactively triggered “on” to an extended benefit period for weeks of unemployment beginning April 12, 2009, and eligible unemployed workers will be able to collect up to an additional 13 weeks of unemployment insurance benefits.

## Information for Claimants

The duration of benefits payable in the EB program, and the terms and conditions on which they are payable, are governed by the Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970, as amended, and the operating instructions issued to the states by the U.S. Department of Labor. In the case of a state beginning an EB period, the State Workforce Agency will furnish a written notice of potential entitlement to each individual who has exhausted all rights to regular benefits and is potentially eligible for EB (20 CFR 615.13(c)(1)). Persons who believe they may be entitled to EB or who wish to inquire about their rights under the program should contact their State Workforce Agency.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Scott Gibbons, U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Office of Workforce Security, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Frances Perkins Building, Room S-4231, Washington, DC 20210,                               ( print page 30622)                            telephone number (202) 693-3008 (this is not a toll-free number) or by e-mail:                         *gibbons.scott@dol.gov*.                    

Signed in Washington, DC, this 19th day of June 2009.

Douglas F. Small,

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Employment and Training Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9-15164 Filed 6-25-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FW-P
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 2066** 

In re: ANTHONY MCQUEEN , Petitioner
.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
. (Nos. 1:04

- cr - 00257

- CMH

- 1; 1:09

- cv - 00242

- CMH)

Submitted : November 21, 2013 Decided: November 25, 2013

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion
. Anthony McQueen, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Anthony McQueen petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging that the district court has unduly delayed in ruling on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion filed in his 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 ( West Supp. 2013) proceeding
. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. After reviewing the district court’s docket, we confirmed that the district court ruled on McQueen’s motion on November 1, 2013 . Accordingly, we deny the mandamus petition as moot . We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 124 (Tuesday, June 30, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31338-31344]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15428]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Renewable Charter and Filing Letters; Correction

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS); Tax Exempt and Government 
Entities Division.

ACTION: Correction to a notice of Renewal Charter and Filing Letters.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document contains a correction to a notice of renewal 
charter and filing letters, which was filed and available for public 
inspection with the Office of the Federal Register on June 24, 2009 and 
published on June 25, 2009. The renewal charter was filed on June 16, 
2009, with the Committee on Finance of the United States Senate, the 
Committee on Ways and Means of the U.S. House of Representatives, and 
the Library of Congress.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Need for Correction

    As submitted to the Federal Register, the renewal charter is 
missing as well as the previously mentioned filing letters.

Correction of Filing

    Accordingly, the filing of the renewal charter is corrected by 
including the charter and the charter's filing letters.

    Dated: June 24, 2009.
Steven J. Pyrek,
Designated Federal Official, Tax Exempt and Government Entities 
Division, Internal Revenue Service.
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P

[[Page 31339]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN30JN09.000


[[Page 31340]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN30JN09.001


[[Page 31341]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN30JN09.002


[[Page 31342]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN30JN09.003


[[Page 31343]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN30JN09.004


[[Page 31344]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN30JN09.005

[FR Doc. E9-15428 Filed 6-25-09; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-C
The State of TexasAppellee



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

September 8, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00323

- CR

Steven BELTRAN

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 13, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 431439

The Honorable Monica A. Gonzalez, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file the brief is GRANTED. Time is

extended to September 22, 2014.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

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

court on this 8th day of September, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 39 

Expressing support for the designation of March 2, 2019, as ‘‘Gold Star 

Families Remembrance Day’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 11, 2019 

Mr. LATTA (for himself, Mr. JONES, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. 

BYRNE, Mrs. HARTZLER, Mr. FITZPATRICK, Ms. STEFANIK, Mr. 

GARAMENDI, Ms. GABBARD, and Mr. BANKS) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and 

in addition to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of 

such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for the designation of March 2, 2019, 

as ‘‘Gold Star Families Remembrance Day’’. 

Whereas March 2, 2019, marks the 90th anniversary of 

President Calvin Coolidge signing an Act of Congress 

that approved and funded the first Gold Star pilgrimage 

to enable Gold Star families to travel to the gravesites of 

their loved ones who died during World War I; 

Whereas the members and veterans of the Armed Forces of 

the United States bear the burden of protecting the freedom of the people of the United States; and 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 39 IH 

Whereas the sacrifices of the families of the fallen members 

and veterans of the Armed Forces of the United States 

should never be forgotten: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) supports the designation of ‘‘Gold Star 

3 Families Remembrance Day’’; 

4 (2) honors and recognizes the sacrifices made 

5 by the families of members and veterans of the 

6 Armed Forces of the United States who gave their 

7 lives to defend freedom and protect America; and 

8 (3) encourages the people of the United States 

9 to observe ‘‘Gold Star Families Remembrance Day’’ 

10 by— 

11 (A) performing acts of service and good 

12 will in their communities; and 

13 (B) celebrating the lives of those who have 

14 made the ultimate sacrifice so that others could 

15 continue to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit 

16 of happiness. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS