alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906      OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

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

|  | · | the                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                combined predecessors of the                Partnership. |
|--|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                November 10, 2008 | s/MICHAEL                E. MERCER                                        |
|----------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                   | Michael                E. Mercer                                          |
|                                   | Chief                Financial Officer of EV Management LLC,              |
|                                   | general                partner of EV Energy GP, L.P.,                     |
|                                   | general                partner of EV Energy Partners,                L.P. |

----
1 DENY and Opinion Filed February 13, 2020 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-20-00177-CV IN RE JULES DYLAN STUER, Relator Original Proceeding from the 255th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF-17-05507 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Bridges, Osborne, and Reichek Opinion by Justice Reichek
Before the Court is relator’s February 10, 2020 petition for wr it of mandamus. Entitlement to mandamus relief requires relators to show both that the tria l court has clearly abused its discretion and that relator has no adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co ., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). After reviewing the petition, and noting relator has failed to provide us with any mandamus record, we conclude rela tor has not shown he is entitled to the relief requested.–2– Accordingly, we DENY relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.8(a) (the court must deny the petition if the court determin es relator is not entitled to the relief sought).

200177F.P05 /Amanda L. Reichek/ AMANDA L. REICHEK JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                        0000812076
<NAME>                                       EX-27
<MULTIPLIER>                                 1,000

<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                other
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            FEB-27-1999
<PERIOD-START>                               MAR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                 FEB-27-1999
<CASH>                                       41,728
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                29,118
<ALLOWANCES>                                  1,137
<INVENTORY>                                  16,221
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             93,538
<PP&E>                                       13,045
<DEPRECIATION>                                5,616
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              164,082
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        68,619
<BONDS>                                      15,783
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                        475
<OTHER-SE>                                   76,749
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                164,082
<SALES>                                     229,414
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            235,212
<CGS>                                       134,623
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               206,911
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              1,161
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            2,097
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              26,204
<INCOME-TAX>                                 10,633
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          15,571
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                 15,571
<EPS-BASIC>                                   .34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   .33




</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Jerome W., Appellant, v Wendy F., Respondent.

[977 NYS2d 275]

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 5 to establish paternity, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Westchester County (Bowman, J.), entered *729November 16, 2012, which dismissed the petition without prejudice.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the petition is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Westchester County, for further proceedings on the petition.

The petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 5 to establish that he was the father of a child born in 2005 to the respondent mother. After the Family Court was informed that the mother could not appear at a hearing on the petition because she had been ordered by her doctor not to leave her bed at that point in her pregnancy, the court dismissed the petition “without prejudice.” This was erroneous. Instead of dismissing the petition, the court should have either granted the parties’ request to allow the mother to testify by telephone *(see*Family Ct Act § 531-a [a] [iii]) or granted an adjournment of the hearing until the mother recovered *(see*Family Ct Act § 533). Accordingly, we reverse the order dismissing the petition, reinstate the petition, and remit the matter to the Family Court, Westchester County, for further proceedings on the petition. Mastro, J.P., Lott, Austin and Roman, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1

              21   Subsidiaries of the Registrant:

                   -  Meret Communications, Inc., a California corporation

                   -  CEH Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation

                        -  B&T Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation

                             - Osicom Technologies (formerly Cray
                               Communications, Inc.), a Delaware Corporation

                   -   Digital Products, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation

                   -   Distributed Systems International, Inc., an Illinois 
                       corporation

                   -   Relialogic Technology Corporation, a California 
                       corporation

                   -   R-Net International, Inc., a Nevada corporation

                   -   Uni Precision Industrial Limited, incorporated in 
                       Hong Kong

                           -  Uni Precision Mould Limited

                           -  Uni Technology Limited

                   -   PDP Acquisition Corp., a California corporation , (doing
                       business as Pacific Data Products)

                   -   Sciteq Communications, Inc., a Nevada corporation


(b)   Reports on Form 8-K filed during the quarter ended January 31, 1998
      -------------------------------------------------------------------

      None
Case 3:11-cr-00043-JAP   Document 12   Filed 03/09/11   Page 1 of 3 PageID: 23

Case 3:11-cr-00043-JAP   Document 12   Filed 03/09/11   Page 2 of 3 PageID: 24

Case 3:11-cr-00043-JAP   Document 12   Filed 03/09/11   Page 3 of 3 PageID: 25
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Ex Parte Billy Max Collins

No. 06-15-00056-CR

Appeal from the County Court of Hopkins 

County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 5629-C). 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Morriss, 

Justice Moseley and Justice Burgess 

participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that the appeal should be dismissed 

for want of jurisdiction. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

We note that the appellant, Billy Max Collins, has adequately indicated his inability to pay 

costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED JULY 24, 2015

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Angeles
Partners 16 1997 Year-End 10-KSB and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such 10-KSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000812187
<NAME> ANGELES PARTNERS 16
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                             479
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      323
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          10,487
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  12,553
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                         13,545
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    12,553
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,974
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,357
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,304
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (383)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (27.10)<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 99.3

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
(SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18,
UNITED STATES CODE)

In connection with the Annual Report of Del Taco Income Properties IV (the
Partnership) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each
of the undersigned officers of the Partnership, 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; and

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

|                    |  |                                                   | 
|------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------- | 
|Date: March 7, 2003 |  | /s/ Kevin K. Moriarty                            
|                    |  |                                                  
|                    |  | Kevin K. Moriarty                                
|                    |  | Director, Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer   
|                    |  |                                                  
|Date: March 7, 2003 |  | /s/ Robert J. Terrano                            
|                    |  |                                                  
|                    |  | Robert J. Terrano                                
|                    |  | Executive Vice President,
Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           6,100
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  100,600
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,500
<INVENTORY>                                     77,400
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               204,200
<PP&E>                                       1,061,500
<DEPRECIATION>                                 475,400
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 929,900
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          167,300
<BONDS>                                        701,700
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       175,600
<OTHER-SE>                                   (141,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   929,900
<SALES>                                        759,300
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               759,300
<CGS>                                          717,300
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  798,400
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,600
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              80,700
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (121,400)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (47,100)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (74,300)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (7,700)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (82,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.55)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.55)
        

</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

:

SUZANNE VENEZIA, : CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-6692 (MLC)

:

Plaintiff, : O P I N I O N

:

v. :

:

UNION COUNTY PROSECUTOR’S :

OFFICE, et al., :

:

Defendants. :

 :

THE PLAINTIFF brings this action containing claims that are

apparently pursuant to federal law and state law. (Dkt. entry

no. 4, Am. Compl.) By an Opinion, and an Order and Judgment,

both dated May 31, 2011 (“May Opinion” and “May Order”), the

Court (1) dismissed the plaintiff’s claims as drafted in their

entirety because they (a) did not comply with Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure 8(a), 8(d), and 10(b), and (b) contained certain

allegations that were barred by the immunity doctrine, and (2)

granted the plaintiff leave to move to file amended pleadings

curing the deficiencies. (Dkt. entry no. 64, 5-31-11 Order & J.;

see dkt. entry no. 63, 5-31-11 Op.) The plaintiff is assumed to

be familiar with the contents of the May 2011 Opinion and the May

2011 Order; the Court will not repeat their contents here.

THE PLAINTIFF, in response to the May 2011 Opinion and the

May 2011 Order, argues that (1) the Court “ignored an important

central unifying element” in this action when the Court addressed

the impropriety of annexing 200 pages of exhibits to her

Case 3:10-cv-06692-MLC -TJB Document 80 Filed 03/23/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 1186
pleadings, as she should be permitted to show that she “wrote

letter after letter” to various parties (dkt. entry no. 65, Pl.

Br. at 1), (2) “any reasonable person would have ‘discerned’ as

facts and plausible allegations, both the Plaintiff’s physical

injury and violation of rights” (id. at 2), (3) the Court’s

assessment of her pleadings was “superficial” (id. at 2), (4) the

Court has “placed all of its attention on form and not on

substance” in reviewing her pleadings (id. at 5), and (5) there

is no need for her to file amended pleadings, and thus the May

2011 Opinion and the May 2011 Order should be vacated. 

Consequently, the plaintiff has not submitted any proposed

amended pleadings for the Court to review.

THE COURT provided the plaintiff with an opportunity to cure

the deficiencies in her pleadings. The plaintiff has rejected

this opportunity. Thus, this action will remain closed. But the

Court will grant the plaintiff leave to pursue any state law

claims in state court, in the interests of justice. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1367. The Court will issue an appropriate order and judgment.1

 s/ Mary L. Cooper 

MARY L. COOPER

United States District Judge

Dated: March 23, 2012

 The Court expressed concerns in the May 2011 Opinion 1

about potential parallel state court proceedings. (See 5-31-11

Op. at 4-7.) Those concerns are now moot.

2

Case 3:10-cv-06692-MLC -TJB Document 80 Filed 03/23/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 1187
# table148_q15.5_naics
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ANTONIO A. TANKES,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D21-712

[October 6, 2021]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Sherri L. Collins, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2004-CF-004059-AXXX-WB.

Antonio A. Tankes, Carrabelle, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Allan R. Geesey, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CONNER, C.J., and KUNTZ, J., concur.

WARNER, J., dissenting with opinion.

WARNER, J., dissenting.

I would reverse the order prohibiting appellant from further pro se filing 

in the trial court. His claims as to the legality of his sentence appear to 

have been filed in good faith, and it is not clear that they were frivolous. 

The trial court has issued contradictory and confusing rulings with respect 

to whether appellant’s sentence is illegal, and it ruled only in its most 

recent order that appellant is estopped from attacking his sentence as 

illegal. One of appellant’s claims remains pending, but that claim brought 

a different challenge to his sentence. Although the claim is not 

meritorious, see Harris v. State, 789 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001), I 

would not find that the simple filing of the claim should prompt an order 

barring him from future filing. This is not the type of excessive filing which 
2

prompted our supreme court to establish the right of courts to bar litigants 

from further filing. See Rivera v. State, 728 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 1998).

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit 31.2**CERTIFICATIONS**I, Robert G. Costantini, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of ORBCOMM Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based onsuch evaluation; and(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: December 14, 2006                              /s/ Robert G. Costantini   Name:  Robert G. Costantini   Title:  Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer