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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE JOHN
NUVEEN COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          22,315
<SECURITIES>                                    66,589
<RECEIVABLES>                                   73,687
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               162,591
<PP&E>                                          45,340
<DEPRECIATION>                                (33,524)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 472,699
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           45,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           387
<OTHER-SE>                                     330,570
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   472,699
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               169,824
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                90,697
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,460
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 77,667
<INCOME-TAX>                                    30,386
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             47,281
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    47,281
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.47
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.38


</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS BEING MADE TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
SOLELY FOR PURPOSES OF SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C.
1350), WHICH CARRIES WITH IT CERTAIN CRIMINAL PENALTIES IN THE EVENT OF A
KNOWING OR WILLFUL MISREPRESENTATION.


Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC  20549

         Re: The John Nuveen Company

Ladies and Gentlemen:

         In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period
ending September 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the "Report") of The John Nuveen Company (the "Company") and pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, each of the undersigned hereby certifies that:

                  (i) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section
         13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


Dated as of this 13th day of November 2002.


                                 /s/  Timothy R. Schwertfeger
                                 ----------------------------------
                                 Timothy R. Schwertfeger
                                 Chief Executive Officer


                                 /s/  John P. Amboian
                                 ----------------------------------
                                 John P. Amboian
                                 President


                                 /s/  Margaret E. Wilson
                                 ----------------------------------
                                 Margaret E. Wilson
                                 Senior Vice President, Finance
#### Anthony PACEE *v.*STATE of Arkansas

CR 90-285

962 S.W.2d 808

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered March 5, 1998

*Petitioner, pro se.*

*Winston Bryant,*Att’y Gen., by: *Brad Newman,*Asst. Att’y Gen., for respondent.

*185Per Curiam.

In 1990, Anthony Pacee was found guilty of four counts of violating the Arkansas Uniform Controlled Substances Act and the offense of being a felon in possession of a firearm. He was sentenced as a habitual offender to terms of imprisonment of twenty years, twelve years, twelve years, and life. We affirmed. *Pacee v. State,*306 Ark. 563, 816 S.W.2d 856 (1991). Pacee subsequently filed in the trial court a petition for postconviction relief which was denied.

On December 16, 1997, Pacee filed a petition here entitled “Petition for an Extraordinary Remedy from a Judgment in Columbia County, Arkansas,” which invokes “the ancient writ of error coram nobis.” We treat the petition as a petition to reinvest the trial court with jurisdiction to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis and deny it. Once a judgment has been affirmed on appeal, a petition for leave to proceed in the trial court with a coram nobis action is necessary because the circuit court can entertain a petition for writ of error coram nobis after a judgment has been affirmed on appeal only after we grant permission. *Larimore v. State,*327 Ark. 271, 938 S.W.2d 818 (1997).

A writ of error coram nobis is an exceedingly narrow remedy, appropriate only when an issue was not addressed or could not have been addressed at trial because it was somehow hidden or unknown and would have prevented the rendition of the judgment had it been known to the trial court. *Penn v. State,*282 Ark. 571, 670 S.W.2d 426 (1984), citing *Troglin v. State,*257 Ark. 644, 519 S.W.2d 740 (1975). The writ is allowed only under compelling circumstances to achieve justice and to address errors of the most fundamental nature. A presumption of regularity attaches to the criminal conviction being challenged, *Larimore, supra,*citing *United States v. Morgan,*346 U.S. 502, 512 (1954), and the petition must be brought in a timely manner. *Penn, supra.*Newly discovered evidence in itself is not a basis for relief under coram nobis. *Larimore, supra; Smith v. State,*301 Ark. 374, 784 S.W.2d 595 (1990).

Petitioner asserts that jurisdiction should be reinvested in the trial court to consider an error coram nobis petition on the following grounds: (1) he was not informed of his right to coun*186sel under Criminal Procedure Rule 36.4; (2) he was not present during an *ex parte*communication with the jury; and (3) he was denied effective assistance of counsel because a “fee cap” was in place which undermined his defense. We do not find that petitioner Pacee has demonstrated that there was a fundamental error extrinsic to the record which would have resulted in a different verdict had the fact been known at trial. As a result, there is no cause to reinvest the trial court with jurisdiction to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis.

Petition denied.
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 10-1441

___________ Pamela Rhodes, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. Arkansas State University, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: August 4, 2010 Filed: August 11, 2010

___________ Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Pamela Rhodes appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in her employment-discrimination action agai nst Arkansas State University. After careful de novo review, seeHannoon v. Fawn Eng’g Corp. , 324 F.3d 1041, 1045 (8th Cir. 2003), we find no error in th e district court’s order, see id. at 1048 (elements of harassment claim); Box v. Principi , 442 F.3d 692, 696 (8th Cir. 2006) (elements of race-discrimination and retaliation claims ). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We deny appellee’s pending motion as moot.

______________________________

1 The Honorable Brian S. Miller, United St ates District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
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 Arizona Gold and Onyx Mining Company f/k/a Viking Capital Group, Inc. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”),
I, Michael Mitsunage, Chief Executive Officer 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; and



2.       The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations
of the Company.



May 8, 2018



| | /s/
    Michael Mitsunage                  
| | -------------------------------------------
| | Michael
    Mitsunage                      
| | (Chief
    Executive Officer and President)



A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise
adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement 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.
DISMISS and Opinion Filed November 23, 2021 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-21-00997-CR DEREK PAUL RAY SR., Appellant V. THE STATE OF TE XAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F96-51596-I MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Pedersen, III, Goldstein, and Smith Opinion by Justice Smith Derek Paul Ray Sr. appeals his convictio n for injury to a child. On November 15, 2021, appellant filed his pr o se notice of appeal with this Court, stating he was appealing the trial court’s denial of hi s motion for judgment nunc pro tunc on back time credit. We dismiss this appeal. An appellate court has jurisdiction to de termine an appeal only if the appeal is authorized by law. Abbott v. State , 271 S.W.3d 694, 696

‒ 97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). When the appellate court’s jurisdic tion is not legally invoked, the court’s power to act is as absent as if it did not exist. Olivo v. State , 918 S.W.2d 519, 523 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Appe llate courts may consider criminal appeals only after–2– final conviction or the entry of a narrow se t of appealable inte rlocutory orders. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26.2(a)(1); Wright v. State , 969 S.W.2d 588, 589 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1998, no pet.). Here, appellant seeks to appeal the tr ial court’s denial of his motion for judgment nunc pro tunc on back time credit. However, the denial of a nunc pro tunc on back-time credit is not appealable. See Abbott , 271 S.W.3d at 697 (“In this case, we have not found any rule or any statut ory or constitutional provision that would authorize appellant’s appeal from the tr ial court’s post-judgm ent order denying his time-credit motion.”). Beca use there is no rule or statutory or constitutional provision allowing such an appeal, we conclude we lack jurisdiction. See id

. We dismiss this appeal.

Do Not Publish T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2(b) 210997F.U05 / Crai g Smith / CRAIG SMITH JUSTICE–3– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT DEREK PAUL RAY SR., Appellant
No. 05-21-00997-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2, Dall as County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F96-51596-I. Opinion delivered by Justice Smith. Justices Pedersen, III and Goldstein participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Judgment entered November 23, 2021
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Quarterly Report of Encysive Pharmaceuticals
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 (the
"Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof, I, Stephen L. Mueller, Vice President, Finance and Administration,
Secretary and Treasurer 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, 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/ STEPHEN L. MUELLER
------------------------------------------
Stephen L. Mueller
Vice President, Finance and Administration
Secretary & Treasurer

November 12, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Encysive Pharmaceuticals Inc. and will be retained by Encysive
Pharmaceuticals Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
Executive Order 13809

# Restoring State, Tribal, and Local Law Enforcement's Access to Life-Saving Equipment and Resources

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

**Section 1**                        .                         *Revocation of Executive Order 13688.*Executive Order 13688 of January 16, 2015 (Federal Support for Local Law Enforcement Equipment Acquisition), is hereby revoked.                    

**Sec. 2**                        .                         *Revocation of Recommendations Issued Pursuant to Executive Order 13688.*                         The recommendations issued pursuant to Executive Order 13688 do not reflect the policy of the executive branch. All executive departments and agencies are directed, as of the date of this order and consistent with Federal law, to cease implementing those recommendations and, if necessary, to take prompt action to rescind any rules, regulations, guidelines, or policies implementing them.                    

**Sec. 3**                        .                         *General Provisions.*                         (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:                    

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

[FR Doc. 2017-18679

Billing code 3295-F7-P
#### Eli BOSTICK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M.J. LAMB, Superintendent; Dr. Richard Broadwell, Defendants-Appellees, and C/o R. Branam; c/o G. Davis, Defendants.

No. 12-7443.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 21, 2012.

Decided: Jan. 7, 2013.

Eli Bostick, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Pharr McCullough, Young, Moore & Henderson, PA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Before KING and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*231PER CURIAM:

Eli Bostick appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies * and the court’s order denying his Fed. R. Cir. P. 59(e) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Bostick v. Lamb,*No. 5:10-cW)3148-BO, 2012 WL 3070029 (E.D.N.C. July 27, 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.*

*

 Although dismissals without prejudice generally are not appealable, we conclude that the court’s order is a final order. *See Domino Sugar v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392,*10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir.1993).
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 
     FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-QSB FOR QUARTER
     ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
     SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                              1      
<CURRENCY>                                U.S. DOLLARS     
       
<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                            APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                              JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                     1
<CASH>                                              0
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                               5,649,539
<ALLOWANCES>                                  381,000     
<INVENTORY>                                   616,114
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            6,214,742
<PP&E>                                      3,451,988
<DEPRECIATION>                                621,564
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             20,974,922
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       6,882,459
<BONDS>                                     2,903,242
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                       79,096
<OTHER-SE>                                 11,051,306
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               20,974,922
<SALES>                                     3,326,426
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           16,116,378
<CGS>                                       2,332,273
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              13,015,700
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               61,173
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            299,772
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               653,380
<INCOME-TAX>                                  178,405
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           474,975
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                  474,975
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    $.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $.06
        


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT
      23 - CONSENT OF DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP**





**Consent
      of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**





We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
      333-59290 on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 333-120643 on Form S-4,
      Registration Statement No. 333-130292 on Form S-3ASR, and Registration Statement
      No. 333-133595 on Form S-8 of our reports dated February 26, 2007, relating
      to
      the financial statements and financial statement schedules of Frontier Oil
      Corporation (which included explanatory paragraphs regarding the Company’s
      adoption of Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Interpretation No. 47,
“Accounting for Conditional Asset Obligations,” FASB Staff Position No. AUG
      AIR-1, “Accounting for Planned Major Maintenance Activities”, Statement of
      Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) No. 123(R), “Share-Based Payment”, and
      SFAS No. 158, “Employers’ Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and Other
      Postretirement Plans,” and management’s report on the effectiveness of internal
      control over financial reporting appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K
      of
      Frontier Oil Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2006.





DELOITTE
      & TOUCHE LLP





Houston,
      Texas


February
      2 6,
      2007
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Institute of                           ( print page 40780)                        Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering Special Emphasis Panel.                

The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering Special Emphasis Panel, NIBIB P41 Review (2018/01).                    

*Date:*                         September 17-19, 2017.                    

*Time:*                         5:00 p.m. to 12:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Courtyard Los Angeles LA Live, 901 West Olympic Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90015.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Ruixia Zhou, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Democracy Two Building, Suite 957, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 496-4773,                         *zhour@mail.nih.gov.*

Dated: August 22, 2017.

Melanie J. Pantoja, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2017-18122 Filed 8-25-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P