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

<ARTICLE>                                        5
<CIK>                                   0000884888
<NAME>                        SunPharm Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1
<CURRENCY>                                     USD

<S>                                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                         JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                           SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                  1
<CASH>                                      28,518
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                              767,078
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            76,650
<PP&E>                                      78,293
<DEPRECIATION>                              24,818
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             925,721
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    1,255,157
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                    367
<COMMON>                                       725
<OTHER-SE>                              21,671,051
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               925,721
<SALES>                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           633,541
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                         1,436,084
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (802,543)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (802,543)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                              (802,543)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 712 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.712

                       One Hundred Eighth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
           the twentieth day of January, two thousand and four

                                 An Act

 
                  For the relief of Richi James Lesley.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR RICHI JAMES LESLEY.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of section 
201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Richi James Lesley shall be 
eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status 
to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon 
filing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under section 
204 of such Act or for adjustment of status to lawful permanent 
resident.
    (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Richi James Lesley enters the United 
States before the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), he shall 
be considered to have entered and remained lawfully and shall, if 
otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status under section 
245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
    (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) 
and (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status is filed 
with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
    (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting of an 
immigrant visa or permanent residence to Richi James Lesley, the 
Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, 
during the current or next following fiscal year, the total number of 
immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the country of 
the alien's birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act or, if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas 
that are made available to natives of the country of the alien's birth 
under section 202(e) of such Act.
    (e) Denial of Preferential Immigration Treatment for Certain 
Relatives.--The natural parents, brothers, and sisters of Richi James 
Lesley shall not, by virtue of such relationship, be accorded any 
right, privilege, or status under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. § 1350**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

 

The certification set forth below is being submitted inconnection with this annual report on Form 10-K (the “Report”) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title18 of the United States Code. 

 

I, Darrel Slack, the ChiefFinancial Officer do certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1850, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge: 

 

1. the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and 

 

2. the information contained in the Report fairly presents,in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Centillium Communications, Inc.
#### Miguel GONZALEZ-RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 11-71759.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.*

Filed Dec. 21, 2012.

Murray David Hilts, Law Offices of Murray D. Hilts, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.

OIL, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Lindsay Williams Zimliki, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of The Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

*670Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Miguel Gonzalez-Ramirez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to remand based on ineffective assistance of counsel, and dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to remand, *Movsisian v. Ashcroft,*395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir.2005), and review de novo questions of law, *Mohammed v. Gonzales,*400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review Gonzalez-Ramirez’s challenge to the IJ’s reliance on the Form 1-213, Record of Deportable Alien, because he failed to raise the issue before the BIA and thereby failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. *See Tijani v. Holder,*628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir.2010) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not raised before the BIA).

We also lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of cancellation of removal as a matter of discretion. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)®.

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying Gonzalez-Ramirez’s motion to remand where he failed to establish prejudice from his counsel’s alleged ineffective assistance. *See Mohammed,*400 F.3d at 793-94 (to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, petitioner must show that counsel’s actions may have affected the outcome of the proceedings).

In light of our disposition, we need not address Gonzalez-Ramirez’s claim regarding compliance with *Matter of Lozada,*19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 41381

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

RYAN MATTHEW THRUSTON,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 636

Filed: July 22, 2014

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 

OPINION AND SHALL NOT 

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Canyon County. Hon. Thomas J. Ryan, District Judge. 

Order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Reed P. Anderson, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy 

Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

GUITIERREZ, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge;

and GRATTON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Ryan Matthew Thruston was convicted of injury to a child, Idaho Code § 18-1501(1). 

The district court imposed a unified five-year sentence with a two-year determinate term and 

retained jurisdiction. At the conclusion of the retained jurisdiction program, the court 

relinquished jurisdiction and ordered execution of Thruston’s sentence. Thruston filed an Idaho 

Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Thruston appeals from the order 

denying his Rule 35 motion.

A motion for reduction of sentence under I.C.R. 35 is essentially a plea for leniency, 

addressed to the sound discretion of the court. State v. Knighton, 143 Idaho 318, 319, 144 P.3d 

23, 24 (2006); State v. Allbee, 115 Idaho 845, 846, 771 P.2d 66, 67 (Ct. App. 1989). In 
2

presenting a Rule 35 motion, the defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of 

new or additional information subsequently provided to the district court in support of the 

motion. State v. Huffman, 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). In conducting our 

review of the grant or denial of a Rule 35 motion, we apply the same criteria used for 

determining the reasonableness of the original sentence. State v. Forde, 113 Idaho 21, 22, 740 

P.2d 63, 64 (Ct. App. 1987); Lopez, 106 Idaho at 449-51, 680 P.2d at 871-73. Upon review of 

the record, including any new information submitted with Thruston’s Rule 35 motion, we 

conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court’s order denying 

Thruston’s Rule 35 motion is affirmed.
#### Wrye *v.*The State.

Bleckley, C. J. — 1. It being shown by evidence that the accused had a lawful wife who was still alive when he married another woman, the second marriage was void and did not render this woman incompetent to testify against him as a witness in a criminal case.

2. The statement of the accused to the court and jury, if true, making a case of manslaughter, and he being indicted and on trial for

*467murder, it was error, after charging correctly on the statement, to add: “If the statement is a statement in your judgment which demonstrates his innocence and you believe that statement to be the truth of the case as I have just stated to you, you have the privilege and it would be your duty in that case to acquit him upon it. On the other hand, if you do not believe that statement to be such a statement as demonstrates his innocence, or if you believe that statement to be untrue, then you may accept the sworn testimony in place of it.”

October 8,1894.

Indictment for murder. Before Judge Gamble. Tattnall superior court. April term, 1894.

Garrard, Meldrim & Newman, Hines & Felder, Lee & Giles and A. H. Davis, for plaintiff in error.

J. M. Terrell, attorney-general, and B. D. Evans, solicitor-general, by Harrison & Peeples, *contra.*

*Judgment reversed.*
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jared Davis, Appellant.

[853 NYS2d 896]

*896The trial court did not err in finding that the complainant’s statements on a recording of his telephone call to the 911 emergency number were excited utterances and therefore admissible *(see People v Johnson,*1 NY3d 302, 306 [2003]; *People v Gantt,*48 AD3d 59 [2007]; *People v Blackman,*13 AD3d 640, 641 [2004]; *People v Prashad,*297 AD2d 352 [2002]; *cf. People v Carroll,*95 NY2d 375, 385 [2000]; *People v Vasquez,*88 NY2d 561, 579 [1996]). Fisher, J.P., Dillon, McCarthy and Belen, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5209 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5209

  To adjust the boundary of Lowell National Historical Park, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 4, 2004

  Mr. Meehan introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To adjust the boundary of Lowell National Historical Park, and for 
                            other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

     This Act may be cited as the ``Lowell National Historical Park 
Boundary Adjustment Act''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS.

    The Act entitled ``An Act to provide for the establishment of the 
Lowell National Historical Park in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 
and for other purposes'' approved June 5, 1978 (Public Law 95-290; 92 
Stat. 290; 16 U.S.C. 410cc et seq.) is amended as follows:
            (1) In section 101(a), by adding a new paragraph after 
        paragraph (2) as follows:
            ``(3) The boundaries of the park are modified to include 
        five parcels of land identified on the map entitled `Boundary 
        Adjustment, Lowell National Historical Park,' numbered 475/
        81,424B and dated September 2004, and as delineated in section 
        202(a)(2)(G).''.
            (2) In section 202(a)(2), by adding at the end the 
        following new subparagraph:
                    ``(G) The properties shown on the map identified in 
                subsection (101)(a)(3) as follows:
                            ``(i) 91 Pevey Street.
                            ``(ii) The portion of 607 Middlesex Place.
                            ``(iii) Eagle Court.
                            ``(iv) The portion of 50 Payne Street.
                            ``(v) 726 Broadway.''.
                                 <all>
```
7 7

Table 35. Multiple jobholders and multiple jobholding rates by sex and race, May of selected years, 1970-2004,

not seasonally adjusted

(Numbers in thousands)

Multiple jobholders

Number

Percent of 

all multiple 

jobholders

1970......... 78,358 4,048 636 15.7 3,412 5.2 2.2 7.0 5.3 4.4

1971......... 78,708 4,035 765 19.0 3,270 5.1 2.6 6.7 5.3 3.8

1972......... 81,224 3,770 735 19.5 3,035 4.6 2.4 6.0 4.8 3.7

1973......... 83,758 4,262 869 20.4 3,393 5.1 2.7 6.6 5.1 4.7

1974......... 85,786 3,889 867 22.3 3,022 4.5 2.6 5.8 4.6 3.8

1975......... 84,146 3,918 956 24.4 2,962 4.7 2.9 5.8 4.8 3.7

1976......... 87,278 3,948 911 23.1 3,037 4.5 2.6 5.8 4.7 2.8

1977......... 90,482 4,558 1,241 27.2 3,317 5.0 3.4 6.2 5.3 2.6

1978......... 93,904 4,493 1,281 28.5 3,212 4.8 3.3 5.8 5.0 3.1

1979......... 96,327 4,724 1,407 29.8 3,317 4.9 3.5 5.9 5.1 3.0

1980......... 96,809 4,759 1,549 32.5 3,210 4.9 3.8 5.8 5.1 3.2

1985......... 106,878 5,730 2,192 38.3 3,537 5.4 4.7 5.9 5.7 3.2

1989......... 117,084 7,225 3,109 43.0 4,115 6.2 5.9 6.4 6.5 4.3

1991........... 116,626 7,183 3,129 43.6 4,054 6.2 5.9 6.4 6.4 4.9

1994......... 122,946 7,316 3,343 45.7 3,973 6.0 5.9 6.0 6.1 4.9

1995.......... 124,554 7,952 3,727 46.9 4,225 6.4 6.5 6.3 6.6 5.2

1996......... 126,391 7,846 3,494 44.5 4,352 6.2 6.0 6.4 6.4 5.1

1997......... 129,565 8,197 3,800 46.4 4,398 6.3 6.4 6.3 6.5 5.7

1998......... 131,476 8,126 3,688 45.4 4,438 6.2 6.1 6.3 6.3 5.5

1999......... 133,411 7,895 3,778 47.9 4,117 5.9 6.1 5.8 6.0 5.5

2000......... 136,685 7,751 3,667 47.3 4,084 5.7 5.8 5.6 5.9 4.9

2001......... 137,121 7,540 3,626 48.1 3,914 5.5 5.7 5.3 5.6 5.3

2002......... 136,559 7,247 3,511 48.4 3,736 5.3 5.5 5.1 5.5 4.7

2003......... 137,567 7,338 3,498 47.7 3,841 5.3 5.4 5.3 5.5 4.3

2004......... 138,867 7,258 3,605 49.7 3,653 5.2 5.6 4.9 5.3 5.1

White

Multiple jobholding rate1

Year Black or 

African 

American2

Men Total Men Women

Women Total 

employed Total

1 Multiple jobholders as a percent of all employed persons in

specified group.

2 Data for years prior to 1977 refer to the black-and-other

population group.

NOTE: Data from 1994-2004 are not strictly comparable with

data for prior years. For an explanation, see "Historical Comparability" under the Household Data section of “Explanatory Notes and

Estimates of Error” in Employment and Earnings. Comprehensive

surveys of multiple jobholders were not conducted in 1981-84,

1986-88, 1990, and 1992-93.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

Alpha Pro Tech, Ltd.

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

 

18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,

 

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

 

SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with thequarterly report of Alpha Pro Tech, Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q forthe quarter ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Sheldon Hoffman,Chief Executive Officer and Director of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1) The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| DATE:  | **October 28, 2009** | ** ** | BY:    | /s/**Sheldon Hoffman**                |
|--------|---------------------------|------------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|   |                      |       |   |                                  |
|   |                      |       |   | Sheldon Hoffman                       |
|   |                      |       |   | Chief Executive Officer  and Director |

 

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI

NO. 95-CT-01038-SCT

FREDERICK JONES A/K/A Appellant

FRED ARTHUR JONES

v.

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI Appellee

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed by David L. Walker on

behalf of Frederick Jones. The Court finds that M.R.A.P. 17(b) states in pertinent part:

The petition for writ of certiorari . . . must briefly and succinctly state the precise basis on which

the party seeks review by the Supreme Court . . . . No citation to authority or argument may be

incorporated into the petition by reference to another document.

In reviewing the petition sub judice, the Court finds that it is unable to determine what issues are

presented for certiorari review. The petition filed in this matter presents no issues and does not

comply with Rule 17(b) and should be denied.

The Court further finds that a regular practice has grown up among some counsel to file pro forma

petitions for certiorari on a routine basis. These petitions generally assert no issues, but make general

statements, as does the petition sub judice, that the petition involves issues of general interest to the

criminal defense bar and the state prosecutors. The practice of filing a meaningless petition which

expends the time and opportunity allowed for the client to seek second tier review cannot be

reconciled with the rights of the petitioner nor the integrity of the judicial system.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Certiorari be, and hereby is, denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitions for writ of certiorari filed by the Hon. David L. Walker

following entry of this order conform to M.R.A.P. 17(b).

SO ORDERED, this, the day of October, 1997.
DAN LEE, CHIEF JUSTICE

FOR THE COURT

TO DENY CERTIORARI: ALL JUSTICES

CONCURRING IN THIS ORDER: LEE, C.J., PRATHER AND SULLIVAN, P.JJ., PITTMAN,

BANKS, ROBERTS, SMITH AND MILLS, JJ.

NOT CONCURRING IN THIS ORDER: McRAE, J.
Case 2:11-cr-00388-SRC Document 36 Filed 12/22/11 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 117
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 quarterly report of Mattmar Minerals, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending August 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
“Report”), I, Arnold P. Kling, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.


|Dated: October 10, 2008            
|-----------------------------------
|                                   
|/s/ Arnold P. Kling                
|-----------------------------------
|Arnold P. Kling                    
|President                          

A signed original of this certification has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
Chart 3-9. Declining proportions of men have worked for 

their current employer for 10 years or longer

19

37

51

58

62

66 66

48

12

25

36

48

53 53

49 47

0

20

40

60

80

30 to 34

years

35 to 39 40 to 44 45 to 49 50 to 54 55 to 59 60 to 64 65 years

and over

1983 2004

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Percent with 10 or more 

years of tenure

Age

Chart 3-9. Declining proportions of men have worked for 

their current employer for 10 years or longer

• In nearly every age group, the proportion of men who worked for their current 

employer for 10 years or longer declined between 1983 and 2004.

• Many perceive longevity with an employer as a measure of employment 

stability. Hence, long tenure and rising tenure are viewed as “good” and short 

tenure and falling tenure as “bad.” Tenure can be an ambiguous indicator, 

however. For example, many people change employers voluntarily to take 

better jobs. If the economy is performing well, more workers have 

opportunities to change jobs voluntarily, possibly resulting in a decline in 

tenure.