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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The Consolidated Balance Sheet as of June 30, 1998 and December 31, 1997 and the
Statement of Operations for the three and six months ended June 30, 1998.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000884269
<NAME> ALPHA PRO TECH, LTD.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         111,000
<SECURITIES>                                    17,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,818,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    67,000
<INVENTORY>                                  3,378,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,625,000
<PP&E>                                       3,383,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,264,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,254,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,943,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       241,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  24,338,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,254,000
<SALES>                                      4,701,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,701,000
<CGS>                                        2,884,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,675,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              51,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 91,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             91,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    91,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Hardy, Appellant.

[822 NYS2d 458]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Smith, J.), rendered March 5, 2002, convicting him of attempted robbery in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which *939could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631 [1976]; *cf People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606 [1979]). Adams, J.E, Krausman, Rivera and Lifson, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 35.1
 
 
 SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT
 OF CITIBANK, N.A.
 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2011
 
 
 The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Citibank, N.A. (on its own behalf and as successor by merger to Citibank (South Dakota), National Association, “Citibank”) as Servicer under the Second Amended and Restated Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of August 9, 2011 (the “Pooling and Servicing Agreement”) as supplemented by the Amended and Restated Series 2000 Supplement thereto dated as of August 9, 2011 (the “Series 2000 Supplement” and, together with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, the “Agreement”) each between Citibank, as Seller and Servicer, and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Trustee; and as Managing Beneficiary of Citibank Credit Card Issuance Trust (the “Issuing Entity”) under the Amended and Restated Indenture dated as of August 9, 2011 (the “Indenture”) between the Issuing Entity and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Trustee, does hereby certify that:
 
 1.  Citibank is the Servicer under the Agreement and the Managing Beneficiary of the Issuing Entity.
 
 2.  A review of the servicing activities of Citibank during the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011 (the “Reporting Period”) and of its performance under the Agreement and the Indenture was conducted under my supervision.
 
 3.  To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, Citibank has fulfilled all of its servicing obligations under the Agreement and the Indenture in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.
 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this certificate this 28th day of March, 2012.
 
 
 /s/ Douglas C. Morrison
 ___________________________
 Douglas C. Morrison
 Vice President
# table14full12

&8Page &P of &N
**ICIM Services***Partners in Risk Management*

 

November 18, 2014

 

Mr. Michael Lewis  Chief Compliance Officer  Saturna Capital Corporation  1300 N. State Street  Bellingham, WA 98225

**RE: ICI Mutual Investment Company Blanket Bond No. 89265114B ("Bond")****D&O/E&O Liability Insurance Policy No. 89265114D ("Policy")**

Dear Michael:

We understand that you prepare a proposed allocation of premium between the joint insureds on the above referenced Bond and Policy. I am hereby confirming that the share of total premium for Blanket Bond and D&O/E&O coverage allocated to each Investment Company Insured is less than the premium such company would have had to pay if it had purchased separate policies each with the same limit from ICI Mutual.

Further to your request, we are providing the following estimates for individual bonds and policies for the separate insureds in the chart below.  Please note that these are not quotations, and do not include state premium tax amounts. Should you wish to seek formal quotes for these options, please advise us accordingly as additional underwriting will be necessary.

||
||
| **Individual Insured** | **Bond Limit (Option 1)** | **Bond         Premium (Option 1)** | **Bond Limit (Option 2)** | **Bond         Premium (Option 2)** | **D&O/E&O         Policy Limit** | **Policy Premium** |
| Amana Funds Trust | $2,300,000 | $11,500 | $3,500,000 | $17,000 | $3,000,000 | $70,000 |
| Saturna Investment Trust | $750,000 | $4,100 | $3,500,000 | $16,000 | $1,000,000 | $22,500 |
| Saturna Capital Corp | $250,000 | $2,100 | $3,500,000 | $15,500 | $1,000,000 | $31,500 |
| Saturna Brokerage Svcs | $200,000 | $1,900 | $3,500,000 | $15,000 | N/A |

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 202/326-5462.

Regards,

*/s/Joseph Costello*Underwriter

 

 

 

*1401 H Street, NW • Washington, DC  2005 • 800.643.4246 • Fax: 202.682.2425*
<PAGE>

Exhibit 32.1

                        CERTIFICATION OF CEO 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 Annual Report of Ezcomm Enterprises, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the period ending May 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Peter Braun, as
President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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 result of operations of the Company.

By: /s/ Peter Braun
    -------------------------
Peter Braun
CEO and CFO
August 29, 2005
Case 3:11-cv-03183-FLW-TJB Document 4-15 Filed 06/03/11 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 159
Case 3:11-cv-03183-FLW-TJB Document 4-15 Filed 06/03/11 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 160
Case 3:11-cv-03183-FLW-TJB Document 4-15 Filed 06/03/11 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 161
**Exhibit 99.1**

##### ** **

##### **Form of Section 906 Certification**

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER OR**

**PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

 

In connection with theaccompanying Form 10-Q of Conductus, Inc. for the nine month period endedSeptember 30, 2002, I, Charles E. Shalvoy, Chief Executive Officer, ofConductus, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adoptedpursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  such Form 10-Qfor the nine month period ended September 30, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

(2)                                  the informationcontained in such Form 10-Q for the nine month period ended September 30, 2002fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of Conductus, Inc.

 

 
| November 14, 2002 |   |                                                                | /s/ Charles E. Shalvoy |   |
|-------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------|--------|
| Date              |   | Charles E. Shalvoy                                                  |
|              |   | President and Chief  Executive Officer  and Duly Authorized Officer |
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gemini BOYD, a/k/a Jaraun Boyd, a/k/a Gemini, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-7737.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 13, 2012.

Decided: Dec. 19, 2012.

Gemini Boyd, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Ap-pellee.

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Gemini Boyd appeals the district court’s text order denying his motion to take judicial notice of his pro se motions as moot. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Boyd,*No. 3:96-cr-00134-FDW-4 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 5, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
OFFJCE OF THE AITORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

GROVER SELLERR 

AnuRNLIGPYRIL 


Honwable Jw P. Fbak, p8&8 4 

Sac~ticn 14 of Art. 6144b, V. A. C. 8. (the Ant 0~8atlng 

f&8 s‘exaa Cenbnnhl C0m4b88Um) ~wldod aa follinmt
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Melvin Butler, Appellant.

[854 NYS2d 506]

*895The form waiver of the right to appeal signed by the defendant contained a misstatement of the applicable law and was misleading *(see People v Pollenz,*67 NY2d 264 [1986]; *People v Hurd,*44 AD3d 791, 792 [2007], *lv denied*9 NY3d 1006 [2007]). Therefore, the purported waiver was invalid and appellate review of the defendant’s claim that the sentence imposed was excessive is not foreclosed.

We note that, apart from the invalidity of the waiver, a general waiver of the right to appeal does not foreclose review of the defendant’s contention that he was denied due process in the hearing conducted to determine if he violated a condition of the plea agreement *(see People v Kitchens,*46 AD3d 577 [2007]; *People v Garner,*18 AD3d 669, 669-670 [2005]; *People v Stowe,*15 AD3d 597, 598 [2005]). The hearing that was conducted was thorough and sufficient to support the Supreme Court’s determination that the defendant’s statements to the probation department were untruthful *(see People v Kinloch,*7 AD3d 734, 735 [2004]). The hearing was conducted in accordance with the requirements of due process *(see People v Valencia,*3 NY3d 714 [2004]; *People v Hicks,*98 NY2d 185 [2002]; *People v Outley,*80 NY2d 702 [1993]). The condition of the plea that the defendant be truthful in responding to the inquiries of the probation department was explicit and objective, and was acknowledged, understood, and accepted by the defendant as part of the plea agreement. The defendant’s violation of that condition allowed the Supreme Court to impose the enhanced sentence.

The enhanced sentence was part of the negotiated plea agreement *(see People v McCauley,*37 AD3d 739 [2007]; *People v Rosato,*37 AD3d 741 [2007]; *People v Rodriguez,*32 AD3d 481 [2006]). In any event, the defendant’s contention that the sentence imposed was excessive is without merit *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Rivera, J.P., Ritter, Carni and Leventhal, JJ., concur.
# SITC Export Price Indexes
#### Engilberto VENEGAS-MAGALLON, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 11-72682.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.*

Filed Dec. 21, 2012.

Sharon A. Healey, Law Office of Sharon A. Healey, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.

OIL, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Yedidya Cohen, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: 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 **

Engilberto Venegas-Magallon, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying his application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. *678§ 1252. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary good moral character determination. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); *see also Lopez-Castellanos v. Gonzales,*437 F.3d 848, 854 (9th Cir.2006) (no jurisdiction to review agency’s discretionary good moral character determinations).

Venegas-Magallon fails to raise any argument in the opening brief with respect to his motion to remand. *See Martinez-Serrano v. INS,*94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (issues not supported by argument in the opening brief are deemed abandoned).

In light of our disposition, we do not reach Venegas-Magallon’s remaining contentions.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
# laucnty07

&8Page &P of &N
# 19SNR04_00
###                                                           THE AAL MUTUAL FUNDS
Exhibit 32.2

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 Form 10-K of Microtune, Inc. (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, Jeffrey A. Kupp, 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                                      
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ JEFFREY A. KUPP                                                                                   
|Jeffrey A. Kupp Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
|
|

Date: February 20, 2009
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7418
LEAMON L. TATUM, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusDIVISION OF CORRECTION; MARYLAND HOUSE OF CORRECTION; RICHARD LANHAM, DOC Comm.; WILLIAM L. SMITH, MHC-J Warden; MAJOR WILLIAMS; CAPTAIN KOPPEL, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge. (CA96-1009-S) Submitted: January 9, 1997 Decided: January 24, 1997 Before HALL and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Leamon L. Tatum, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Toni-Jean Lisa, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Leamon L. Tatum appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Tatum v. Division of Correction , No. CA-96-1009-S (D. Md. Aug. 8, 1996). We deny Appellant's motions to appoint counsel and for production of documents. We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# part-time by work levels
Economics Made Easy

What is a representative sample?

Many surveys at the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics(BLS) use samplesto 

collect data and calculate statistics on the 

economy. With a random sample, people 

are chosen randomly to respond. A 

representative sample includes people 

chosen because they have certain 

characteristicsrelated to what we would 

like to know about. With representative 

samples, we can ask a specific portion of 

the populationquestions about the 

economy and then use their answers to 

talk about the population as a whole. For 

example, if you wanted to answer a 

question about high schoolers and sports, 

you might use a representative sample of

high schoolers who play sports, rather 

than using a random sample and asking 

anyone.

Glossary

Sample — part of a population.

Random sample — part of a 

population chosen randomly.

Representative sample — part 

of a population chosen because 

they have certain characteristics.

Population — the entire group 

we are making conclusions 

about. 

Survey — asking questions and 

collecting data using a sample.

In the news

Polls in the news often use 

samples of people to answer

questions about elections, 

preferences, or other 

interesting topics.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                      13,448,000
<SECURITIES>                                48,056,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  160,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            23,113,000
<PP&E>                                       9,255,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,293,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              69,516,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,719,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       107,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  67,690,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                69,516,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,463,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,680,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,346,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,346,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,346,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.13)
        

</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 2, 2019

a0325 

# Order

Clerk April 2, 2019

158245

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 158245

COA: 341736

Kent CC: 90

- 052017

- FC

JOHN EUGENE MEASE,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 14, 20 18 order

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
**Exhibit
      13.2**




**CERTIFICATION**


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


**AS
      ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




I,
      Dafna
      Gruber, as Chief Financial Officer of Alvarion Ltd. (the “Company”), certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss. 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,
      2006 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:
      April 27, 2007




/s/
      Dafna Gruber


Dafna
      Gruber


Chief
      Financial 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 .