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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Angeles
Income Properties, Ltd. 6 1997 Year-End 10-KSB and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such 10-KSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000812564
<NAME> ANGELES INCOME PROPERTIES, LTD. 6
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,941
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      963
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          36,223
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,650
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  31,573
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                         23,374
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,280
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    31,573
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,434
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,598
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,300
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                836
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   (21)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       815
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    17.05<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32



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 All American Pet Company, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2013,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Barry Schwartz, Chief Executive
Officer and Principal Financial and Accounting 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 results of operations
of the Company.



| | Date: August 14, 2013                    
| | -----------------------------------------
| |                                          
| | /S/ Barry Schwartz                       
| | Barry Schwartz                           
| | CEO and                                  
| | Principal Financial andAccounting Officer
EXHIBIT 1

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 7/24/2015 3:17:06 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
|                                               |   | Year                EndedJune                30, 2007 |      |   | Year                EndedJune                30, 2006 |   |
|----------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------|-----------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| EQUIVALENT                SHARES:                  |   |                                                  |      |   |                                                  |   |
| Weighted                average shares outstanding |   |                                                  | 2,451,610 |   |                                                  |   | 2,493,560 |   |
|                                               |   |                                                  |      |   |                                                  |   |   |   |
| Total                diluted shares                |   |                                                  | 2,470,562 |   |                                                  |   | 2,526,095 |   |
|                                               |   |                                                  |      |   |                                                  |   |   |   |
| Net                income                          |   | $                                                     | 1,886,677 |   |                                                  | $      | 4,004,199 |   |
|                                               |   |                                                  |      |   |                                                  |   |   |   |
| Basic                earnings per share            |   | $                                                     | 0.77      |   |                                                  | $      | 1.61 |   |
|                                               |   |                                                  |      |   |                                                  |   |   |   |
| Diluted                earnings per share          |   | $                                                     | 0.76      |   |                                                  | $      | 1.59 |   |
EXHIBIT 32.1



STRATEX NETWORKS, INC.



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

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 periodic report of Stratex Networks, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-K for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Charles D. Kissner, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of
Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods
indicated.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This Certification has not been, and
shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



|                    |  |  |  |                                           
|------------------- |  |  |  | ------------------------------------------
|Date: June 14, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/ Charles D. Kissner                    
|                    |  |  |  | Charles D. Kissner Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 31.2



CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION



I, Charles Driscoll, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Viscorp, Inc.



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



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;



4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:



a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;



b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions 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 any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



---

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.





Date: November 12, 2007















/s/ Charles Driscoll







Charles Driscoll









Chief Financial Officer
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-10637

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Nicholas Andrew Waldman, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:21-CR-38-1

Before Higginbotham, Higginson, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Nicholas Andrew Waldman appeals his guilty-plea conviction for 

receipt of a firearm while under indictment for a felony, in violation of 18 

U.S.C. §§ 922(n) and 924(a)(1)(D). He argues that § 922(n) is 

unconstitutional on its face or as applied to him because it does not require a 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 21, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-10637 Document: 00516139180 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/21/2021
No. 21-10637

2

sufficient nexus with interstate commerce or, in the alternative, because a 

sufficient nexus was not alleged or admitted here. Waldman further contends 

that these arguments are not subject to the appeal waiver in his plea 

agreement.

We do not address the waiver provision in Waldman’s plea agreement 

because the Government chose not to assert its applicability, instead moving 

for summary affirmance. The motion is unopposed: Waldman concedes that 

the constitutional issue he raises is foreclosed by precedent rejecting similar 

arguments with respect to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), which includes a jurisdictional 

nexus requirement like that in § 922(n). See, e.g., United States v. Alcantar,

733 F.3d 143, 145-46 (5th Cir. 2013). Because the Government’s position “is 

clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as 

to the outcome of the case,” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 

1162 (5th Cir. 1969), summary affirmance is proper.

Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is 

GRANTED, the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time 

to file a brief is DENIED as unnecessary, and the district court’s judgment 

is AFFIRMED.

Case: 21-10637 Document: 00516139180 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/21/2021
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

 

IN RE: MICHAEL CALABRESE, :

: Appeal from Bankruptcy

Appellant. : Case No. 10-6583

:

 : ORDER

 

APPEARANCES:

NICHOLAS S. HERRON

LAW OFFICES OF SEYMOUR WASSERSTRUM

205 W. LANDIS AVE.

VINELAND, NJ 08360 

Attorney for Appellant

MARIKAE G. TOYE

DIVISION OF LAW

R.J. HUGHES JUSTICE COMPLEX

25 MARKET STREET

P.O. BOX 106

TRENTON, NJ 08625 

Attorney for State of NJ, Division of Taxation

DONNA L. WENZEL

ISABEL C. BALBOA 

CHERRY TREE CORPORATE CENTER

535 ROUTE 38

SUITE 580

CHERRY HILL, NJ 08002

CHAPTER 13 Standing Trustee

HILLMAN, District Judge

For the reasons expressed in the Court’s Opinion entered

today,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this 13th day of September , 2011,

that the Order Denying Debtor’s Motion to Expunge or in the

Alternative to Reclassify, entered on November 17, 2010, by the

Case 1:10-cv-06583-NLH Document 7 Filed 09/13/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 85
United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey is

AFFIRMED. 

 S/Noel L. Hillman 

NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

At Camden, New Jersey

Case 1:10-cv-06583-NLH Document 7 Filed 09/13/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 86
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

CONCISE SUMMARY OF THE CASE

U.S. District Court – Eastern District of Pennsylvania 

(PHILADELPHIA)

JAMES WRIGHT,

Appellant(s),

-againstHARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES 

GROUP; THE HARTFORD BENEFIT 

MANAGEMENT SERVICES; GDB CLAIMS 

AND SERVICES OPERATIONS; ABC 1-

10 (that being the names of the 

corporate entities, companies, 

partnership or individuals 

intended),

Appellee(s).

Civil Action No.: 2:11-cv-00602

Hon. Faith S. Hochberg, U.S.D.J.

This is a case under the Employee Retirement Income Security 

Act, U.S.C. §1001, et seq. for long term disability benefits.

The Appellant is the plaintiff, James Wright.

The amount in controversy is long term disability benefits 

of $6,145.oo per month from August 2009 to present.

This is an appeal from an Order dated May 11, 2012 granting 

summary judgment to the defendant insurance company and denying 

summary judgment to plaintiff.

Case 2:11-cv-00602-FSH-MAH Document 77 Filed 06/19/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 2046
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff was the beneficiary of a LTD insurance policy from 

defendant, Hartford, through his employer, JP Morgan Chase Bank. 

Defendant initially granted plaintiff LTD benefits then 

terminated such benefits on thin and spurious evidence such as a 

surveillance video of plaintiff doing light gardening for a brief 

period and the fact that there had once been a business 

associated with plaintiff’s post office box address.

ISSUES TO BE RAISED ON APPEAL

Whether appellee/defendant insurance company was arbitrary and 

capricious in its denial of long term disability benefits to 

plaintiff.

I hereby certify that this Concise Summary of the Case was 

electronically filed with the Clerk of the U.S. Courts of Appeal 

for the Third Circuit and a copy hereof served to each party or 

their counsel of record on this 19th day of June, 2012.

/s/ Kevin T. Kutyla

___________________________

Kevin T. Kutyla

Counsel for Appellant

Attorney ID #KTK8626

83 Spring Street, Ste. 302B

Newton, NJ 07860

973-940-8970

973-940-8973

Case 2:11-cv-00602-FSH-MAH Document 77 Filed 06/19/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 2047
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 this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Susser Holdings Corporation (the Company) for the three months ended June 29,
2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Sam L. Susser, President and 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |    |  |                                      
|----------------------- |  | -- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: February 17, 2009 |  |   
|                        |  |   
|                        |  | By |  | /s/ Sam L. Susser                    
|                        |  |    |  | Sam L. Susser                        
|                        |  |    |  | President and Chief Executive Officer

This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-Q/A pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-51317

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JAVIER QUESADA-RIOS, also known as Javier Quezada-Rios,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:14-CR-514-1

Before PRADO, OWEN and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Javier QuesadaRios has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Counsel also has implicitly moved to supplement the 

record with copies of adjudicative documents regarding Quesada-Rios’s prior 

state conviction. Quesada-Rios has filed a response and has moved for the 

 

* 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

July 13, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-51317 Document: 00513113767 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/13/2015
No. 14-51317

2

appointment of new counsel. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the 

relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Quesada-Rios’s 

response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no 

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Therefore, counsel’s implied motion

for leave to supplement the record and motion for leave to withdraw are

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, QuesadaRios’s motion for appointment of new counsel is DENIED, and the APPEAL IS 

DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 14-51317 Document: 00513113767 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/13/2015
##### 



(as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)
  (1)
    
    the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the
Company for the period ended September 30, 2007 (the
Report), filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, 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 results
of operations of the Company.
  /s/ Robert G. CostantiniRobert G. CostantiniExecutive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
# table74_q9.4_state
#### Andrew Cuillo, Appellant, v Fairfield Property Services, L.P., et al., Respondents.

[977 NYS2d 353]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Whelan, J.), dated December 21, 2011, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

*778The plaintiff allegedly slipped and fell on “black ice” on the defendants’ premises. At his deposition, the plaintiff testified that, prior to the accident, he did not see any snow or ice on the ground. The plaintiff testified that he did not see any wetness or the subject icy condition, even though he looked down before the incident occurred. As a result of the accident, the plaintiff commenced this action. The Supreme Court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

A property owner will be held liable for a slip-and-fall accident involving snow and ice on its property only when it created the dangerous condition which caused the accident or had actual or constructive notice of its existence *(see Mignogna v 7-Eleven, Inc.,*76 AD3d 1054 [2010]; *Crosthwaite v Acadia Realty Trust,*62 AD3d 823 [2009]). Here, the defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating, prima facie, that they did not create the alleged icy condition or have actual or constructive notice of it *(see Gushin v Whispering Hills Condominium I,*96 AD3d 721 [2012]; *Murphy v 136 N. Blvd. Assoc.,*304 AD2d 540 [2003]; *Carricato v Jefferson Val. Mall Ltd. Partnership,*299 AD2d 444 [2002]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in declining to entertain the affidavits of the plaintiff’s experts, who were not previously identified *(see*CPLR 3101 [d] [1] [i]; *Rivers v Birnbaum,*102 AD3d 26 [2012]; *Kozlowski v Oana,*102 AD3d 751 [2013]). In any event, these affidavits were conclusory and insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320 [1986]; *cf. Schmidt v DiPerno,*25 AD3d 545 [2006]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Balkin, J.E, Lott, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur. [Prior Case History: 2011 NY Slip Op 33457(U).]