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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
UNAUDITED INFORMATION FOR 1ST QUARTER 10-Q. THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY
FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AS OF, AND FOR THE THREE-MONTH PERIOD
ENDED, MARCH 31, 1998, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                     2,102
<RECEIVABLES>                                   33,941
<ALLOWANCES>                                       589
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                47,420
<PP&E>                                          24,577
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,351
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  95,963
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           38,926
<BONDS>                                          5,861
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          7
<COMMON>                                           235
<OTHER-SE>                                      51,039
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    95,963
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                26,657
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   15,260
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 179
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,404
<INCOME-TAX>                                       645
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                759
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       759
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.03
        

</TABLE>
# Index

# Table 3.1

# Table 3.2

# Table 3.3

# Table 3.4
Case 2:11-cv-03614-FSH-PS Document 1-1 Filed 06/20/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 13
Case 2:11-cv-03614-FSH-PS Document 1-1 Filed 06/20/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 14
##                                                         The AAL Mutual Funds

###                               Supplement to the Prospectus Dated June 27, 2003
Exhibit 10.21

SUBLEASE AGREEMENT

THIS SUBLEASE AGREEMENT (hereinafter referred to as this "Lease") is made and entered as of this 17th day of December, 2002, by and between SEEBEYOND TECHNOLOGY
CORPORATION (the "Sublessor") and FIDELITY NATIONAL INFORMATION SERVICES, INC. (the "Sublessee").

RECITALS:

WHEREAS,

A.    Sublessor
is the current tenant under a lease agreement dated as of June 19, 2000 (the "Master Lease") by and between THE EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF THE STATE
OF HAWAII, a Government agency of the State of Hawaii, as landlord, and Sublessor, as tenant (the "Master Lease"), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

B.    Sublessor
hereby leases and demises to Sublessee, and Sublessee hereby takes and hires from Sublessor, upon the terms and conditions set forth herein, improvements
containing, in the aggregate, approximately 7,417 square feet of rentable space in an office space located in the second floor suite at 222 E. Huntington Drive, Monrovia, California, all as more
particularly described inExhibit Bhereto (the "Leased Premises").

NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and of the representations, warranties, covenants and conditions set forth herein, Sublessor and Sublessee further understand and agree
that:



Notwithstanding
anything to the contrary herein contained, Sublessee may, at any time after the last day of the sixth (6th) full calendar month of the term, upon thirty (30) days
advance written notice, terminate the term of this Lease. In the event of such notice, the Term shall end on the date set forth in such notice (but in no event earlier than the thirtieth (30th) day
after the receipt thereof by Lessor), and the Base Rent shall be pro-rated. The Sublessor shall deliver possession of the premises to the Sublessee on the Commencement Date.

---



2

---



3

---



4

---



To Sublessor:

SEEBEYOND TECHNOLOGY CORPORATIONTo Sublessee:

Fidelity National Information Services, Inc.
222 Huntington Drive, Monrovia, CA 91016




5

---



6

---



IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, Sublessor and Sublessee have each caused this Lease Agreement to be executed as of the day and year first above written.

|SUBLESSOR:                            |  | SUBLESSEE:                           
|------------------------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|SEEBEYOND TECHNOLOGY                  |  | FIDELITY NATIONAL INFORMATION        
|CORPORATION, a California corporation |  | SERVICES, Inc.                       
|By:                                   |  | /s/ Barry J. PlagaBarry J. Plaga, CFO

7

---



EXHIBIT A        MASTER LEASE

8

---



EXHIBIT B    DESCRIPTION OF LEASED PREMISES

9

---



EXHIBIT C        STANDARDS FOR UTILITIES AND SERVICES

10

---



EXHIBIT D        STANDARDS FOR FURNITURE

11

---

QuickLinks
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, theundersigned, as chief executive officer of SMTC Corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify that to the undersigned’s knowledge: 

1) Amendment Number 1 to the Company’s annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal period ended January 3, 2010 fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

2) the information containedin Amendment Number 1 to the Company’s annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal period ended January 3, 2010 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

Date: May 3, 2010 

A signed original ofthis written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to SMTC Corporation and will be retained by SMTC Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-03-00716-CR NO. 03-03-00717-CR NO. 03-03-00718-CR
Norman Watson, Appellant

v. The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 403RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT NOS. 3013694, 3013749 & 3020811, HONORABLE BRENDA KENNEDY, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Norman Watson seeks to appeal from judgments of conviction for theft. The trial court has certified that these are plea bargain cases and Watson has no right of appeal. S ee Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). The appeals are dismissed. See id . rule 25.2(d).

__________________________________________ Jan P. Patterson, Justice Before Chief Justice Law, Justices B. A. Smith and Patterson Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction Filed: January 8, 2004 Do Not Publish2
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 Piedmont Mining Company, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:
 
 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 operation of the Company.
 
 Date: December 22, 2011
By:
/s/ Robert M. Shields, Jr.Name:  Robert M. Shields, Jr.Title:  Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive

Officer) and Chief Financial Officer (Principal

Financial Officer and Principal Accounting

Officer)
Motion Granted, Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed February

15 , 202 4

.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 2 4

- 00 078

- CV

NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA, AND TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY , Appellant s

V.

PAYNE & KELLER COMPANY, BY AND THROUGH ITS DULY APPOINTED RECEIVER, PETER D. PROTOPAPAS , Appelle e

On Appeal from the 127 th District Court

Harris County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2023

- 70875

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is from the denial by operation of law on January 25, 2024 of appellants’ motions to vacate the notice of domestication of a foreign order or
judgment

. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 35.003. On February 7 , 202 4

, appellant s filed a n unopposed motion to dismiss th is appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a). The motion is granted.

We dismiss the appeal.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Hassan, Poissant, and Wilson.
EXHIBIT 99.2

Alpha Pro Tech, Ltd  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTS OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Alpha Pro Tech, Ltd on from 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Sheldon Hoffman Chief Executive Officer of the company, certify, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|DATE: |  | November 5, 2002 |  | BY: |  | /s/LLOYD HOFFMANLloyd Hoffman
Chief Financial Officer
|----- |  | ---------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------

17

---

QuickLinks
#### Bowman *v.*The State.

Simmons, C. J. — The evidence to sustain the verdict not being altogether satisfactory, there being some evidence of an *alibi,*and the newly discovered evidence consisting in part of the affidavit of one who deposed, after his own conviction and after the trial of the accused, that deponent and another person, not the accused, committed the crime, that the accused was not present when it was committed and had not participated in it, and these facts not having been disclosed by the deponent until after the accused had been convicted and sentenced, a new trial should have been granted.

November 26, 1894.

*Judgment reversed.*

*497Indictment for assault to -murder. Before Judge Reese. Elbert superior court. September term, 1894.

I. C. VanDuzer and W. D. Tutt, for plaintiff in error.

W. M. HowAfeD, solicitor-general, by Harrison & Peeples, *contra.*' - •
EXHIBIT 32.1


                  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) and
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


         In connection with the filing by Rush Financial Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company")  of the  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March
31, 2005 (the "Report"),  I, Dewey M. Moore, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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) and 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 operation of the Company.







                                              /s/ Dewey M. Moore, Jr.
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              Dewey M. Moore, Jr.
                                              Chief Executive Officer


Dated:  May 13, 2005


This certification shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities  Exchange  Act of  1934,  nor  shall  it be  deemed  incorporated  by
reference  in any  filing  under the  Securities  Act of 1933 or the  Securities
Exchange Act of 1934,  except to the extent as shall be  expressly  set forth by
specific reference in such filing.



                                       28
Exhibit 13.1





CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED


PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Assaf Katan, as ActingChief Executive Officer of Alvarion Ltd. (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:




(1)  The accompanying Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission  (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.




Dated: May 15, 2013




/s/ Assaf Katan

Assaf Katan

ActingChief Executive Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Certification of Executive VicePresident and Chief Financial Officer**

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersignedofficer of Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies, tosuch officer’s knowledge, that:

 

(i)                                     theaccompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter endedJune 30, 2003 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended; and

 

(ii)                                  theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

Dated:  August 14, 2003

 
|   | By:    | **/s/ Charles P. Slacik**                               |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   | Charles P. Slacik                                       |
|   |   | Executive Vice President – Chief Financial Officer |
|   |   | (Principal Financial Officer)                           |

 

 

The foregoing certification isbeing furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into anyfiling of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardlessof any general incorporation language in such filing.

 

----
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

THOMAS FLOYD BRISSETTE, SR., 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

P. FINANDER, M.D., M.B.A., C.C.H.P. 

Chief Medical Executive; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees, 

and 

ATTY GEN J BROWN; et al., 

Defendants.

No. 19-55093

D.C. No. 2:13-cv-09284-JGB-PJW

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Jesus G. Bernal, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 8, 2020**

Before: CALLAHAN, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Thomas Brissette appeals pro se from the district 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JAN 13 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 19-55093

court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate 

indifference to his narcolepsy. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We 

review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We 

affirm. 

The district court properly granted summary judgment for Dr. Winslow

because Brissette failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Dr. 

Winslow was deliberately indifferent to Brissette’s narcolepsy. See id. at 1057 (a 

prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards 

an excessive risk to inmate health).

The district court properly granted summary judgment for Drs. Finander, 

Wu, and Lee because Brissette failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and 

failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether administrative 

remedies were effectively unavailable. See Albino v. Baca, 747 F.3d 1162, 1168, 

1172 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (setting forth standard of review; explaining that 

once the defendant has carried the burden to prove that there was an available 

administrative remedy, the burden shifts to the prisoner to come forward with 

evidence showing that there is something in his particular case that made the 

existing and generally available administrative remedies effectively unavailable to 

him).
3 19-55093

Brissette’s request for sanctions is denied. 

AFFIRMED.
# NEM SOC ACS crosswalk

# Definitions

https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsoccind.htmhttps://www.bls.gov/emp/classifications-crosswalks/nem-occupational-coverage.xlsxhttps://www.bls.gov/soc/2018/home.htmhttps://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/forms/emp
# 2011

# 2014

# 2015

# 2017
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Sam Parker, Appellant.

[852 NYS2d 852]

Defendant pleaded guilty to burglary in the second degree and waived his right to appeal. The record of County Court’s colloquy shows that the court adequately explained the significance of his waiver separate and apart from the rights forfeited in his plea of guilty and defendant executed a written waiver of his right to appeal in open court. He was thereafter sentenced to four years in prison and three years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals.

Defendant’s appellate counsel seeks to be relieved of his assignment on the basis that there are no nonfrivolous issues to be raised on appeal. Based upon our review of the record and counsel’s brief, we agree. Defendant entered a voluntary, knowing and intelligent guilty plea and validly waived his right to appeal. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed and counsel’s request for leave to withdraw is granted *(see People v Cruwys,*113 AD2d 979 [1985], *lv denied*67 NY2d 650 [1986]; *see generally People v Stokes,*95 NY2d 633 [2001]).

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Spain, Carpinello and Malone Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and application to be relieved of assignment granted.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth C. SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-3077.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Nov. 19, 2012.

James A. Brown, Office of the United States Attorney, Topeka, KS, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Kenneth C. Smith, Stafford, VA, pro se.

Before LUCERO, TYMKOVICH, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

TIMOTHY M. TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judge.

Following a workplace incident at a Kansas army hospital, Kenneth Smith was tried and convicted of one count of obstruction of official duty and two counts of disorderly conduct. He was sentenced to one year of probation. Smith now appeals his convictions and sentence.1 Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

Smith challenges his conviction and sentence on 11 different grounds, contending that, among other claims, the prosecution withheld and tampered with exculpatory evidence, the court failed to allow evidence of malicious prosecution, the jury was not properly instructed, and Smith was unable to represent himself at trial because he was on medication.

None of the grounds Smith raises, however, contain any factual or legal arguments to support them. Liberally construing his pro se filings, *Cummings v. Evans,*161 F.3d 610, 613 (10th Cir.1998), Smith’s appeal is nevertheless entirely composed of conclusory allegations that are either unsupported or supported only by bald accusations of error and hollow legal references. They are completely lacking in support by evidence in the record. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(9)(A) requires that an appellant provide an argument containing “citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant relies,” yet Smith has utterly failed to do so. We will not “assume the role of advocate” and make Smith’s arguments for him. *See Yang v. Archuleta,*525 F.3d 925, 927 n. 1 (10th Cir.2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). We therefore find no occasion to question the propriety of Smith’s conviction and sentence.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED.

*

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

1

. Although Smith erroneously refers to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in his opening brief, we note this is a direct criminal appeal and not a habeas petition under § 2241.