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

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000886912
<NAME> TECH ELECTRO INDUSTRIES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         698,704
<SECURITIES>                                   930,150
<RECEIVABLES>                                  617,803
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,457,111
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,864,109
<PP&E>                                         496,191
<DEPRECIATION>                                 310,190
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,074,180
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          756,204
<BONDS>                                          2,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,308,275
<OTHER-SE>                                     365,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,074,180
<SALES>                                      1,106,225
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,127,675
<CGS>                                          782,790
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  361,213
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,645
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (29,973)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (7,437)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (22,536)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.04)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                           7                           
       
<S>                             <C>                         
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1997
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           46,578
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                          0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                            0
<EQUITIES>                                     13,788
<MORTGAGE>                                     174
<REAL-ESTATE>                                  3,940
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 68,015
<CASH>                                         1,013
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                             93
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                         3,899
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 82,715
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                41,837
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                            259
<POLICY-OTHER>                                 1,142
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                          15,645
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                5,563
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          4,044
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       1,276
<OTHER-SE>                                     10,526
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   82,715
<PREMIUMS>                                     8,993
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                            1,945
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                             325
<OTHER-INCOME>                                 7
<BENEFITS>                                     5,310
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                    728
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                           4,032
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                695
<INCOME-TAX>                                   120
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            575
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   575
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .32
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                 0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                            0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                              0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                             0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                               0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                        0
        


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 8 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.8

                     One Hundred Fourteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,
           the fourth day of January, two thousand and sixteen

                                 An Act

 
To provide for the approval of the Agreement for Cooperation Between the 
  Government of the United States of America and the Government of the 
      Kingdom of Norway Concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT FOR COOPERATION BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT 
OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE KINGDOM OF 
NORWAY CONCERNING PEACEFUL USES OF NUCLEAR ENERGY.
    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding the provisions for congressional 
consideration of a proposed agreement for cooperation in subsection d. 
of section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2153), the 
Agreement for Cooperation Between the Government of the United States 
of America and the Government of the Kingdom of Norway Concerning 
Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy, done at Washington June 11, 2016, may 
be brought into effect on or after the date of the enactment of this 
Act, as if all the requirements in such section for consideration of 
such agreement had been satisfied, subject to subsection (b).
    (b) Applicability of Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and Other Provisions 
of Law.--Upon entering into effect, the agreement referred to in 
subsection (a) shall be subject to the provisions of the Atomic Energy 
Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.) and any other applicable United 
States law as if such agreement had come into effect in accordance with 
the requirements of section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 
U.S.C. 2153).

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



The undersigned officer of Chittenden Corporation (the Company) hereby certifies that the Companys annual report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2005 to which this certification
is being furnished as an exhibit (the Report), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. This certification is provided pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K (Item 601(b)(32)) promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the Securities Act), and the Exchange Act. In accordance with clause
(ii) of Item 601(b)(32), this certification (A) shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section, and (B) shall not be deemed to be
incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.



|                         |  |  |  |                                               
|------------------------ |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------
|                         |  | 
|Dated: February 17, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/    PAUL A. PERRAULT                       
|                         |  |  |  | Chairman, President andChief Executive Officer
#### Daniel Okorie KALU, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-1530.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 16, 2008.

Decided: Jan. 29, 2008.

Eric Nwaubani, Lloyd F. Ukwu, Ukwu & Associates, Chartered, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Brianne Whelan Cohen, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

*546PER CURIAM:

Daniel Okorie Kalu, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to reopen his immigration proceedings.

Based on our review of the record, we find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion as untimely filed. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (2007). We further find that we lack jurisdiction to review Kalu’s claim that the Board should have exercised its sua sponte power to reopen his removal proceedings. *Ali v. Gonzales,*448 F.3d 515, 518 (2d Cir.2006) (collecting cases). Finally, we find no merit to Kalu’s argument that the Board failed to provide a reasoned basis for its decision. We therefore deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED.*
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANDREW P. SHOLTES, Naval 

Consolidated Brig, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

 v. 

RICHARD V. SPENCER, Secretary of the 

Navy, 

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 18-56110 

D.C. No. 

3:18-cv-01330-MMA-BLM 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Michael M. Anello, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 7, 2019**

Pasadena, California

Before: FARRIS and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges, and KENDALL,*** District 

Judge.

* 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).

*** The Honorable Virginia M. Kendall, United States District Judge for 

the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.

FILED

NOV 12 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

Andrew P. Sholtes (“Sholtes”) appeals the district court's denial of his 

petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, alleging the military trial judge 

erred in failing to admit evidence at trial of the victim's sexual history and 

disposition and drug use in violation of his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. The 

parties are familiar with the facts, so we do not repeat them here. We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm the district court.

We review de novo the dismissal of Sholtes’s habeas petition. Alaimalo v. 

United States, 645 F.3d 1042, 1047 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). The narrow 

question in reviewing a petition for habeas from a prisoner confined pursuant to a 

court martial is whether the military proceedings have “dealt fully and fairly with 

an allegation raised in that application.” Burns v. Wilson, 346 U.S. 137, 142 

(1953). 

The military proceedings easily meet this standard. In a thorough 19-page 

analysis, the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals ("NMCCA") 

addressed Sholtes's claims and sub-claims, identifying the relevant legal standard 

and applying it to the facts before making its conclusion. Sholtes does not raise any 

new claims not considered by the NMCAA. 

Sholtes additionally argues the district court erred in summarily dismissing 

his petition. A district court may summarily dismiss a habeas petition when “it 

appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled” to 
3 

relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2243. It is plain from Sholtes's petition—which incorporates the 

NMCAA decision in its entirety— that the military proceedings "fully and fairly" 

considered his claims. Thus, the district court did not err when it summarily 

dismissed his petition.

AFFIRMED.
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 on Form 10-Q of Kronos Incorporated (the Company) for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
the undersigned, Paul A. Lacy, President and Principal Executive Officer of the Company, and Mark V. Julien, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                   |  |                                          
|------------------ |  | -----------------------------------------
|Dated: May 7, 2007 |  | /S/    PAUL A.
LACY                      
|                   |  | Paul A. Lacy                             
|                   |  | President and Principal Executive Officer



|                   |  |                        
|------------------ |  | -----------------------
|Dated: May 7, 2007 |  | /S/    MARK V.
JULIEN  
|                   |  | Mark V. Julien         
|                   |  | Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Kronos Incorporated and will be retained by Kronos Incorporated and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION 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, in his capacity as an officer of The Finish Line, Inc. (the Company), for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:



| |  |  | The Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the thirteen weeks ended May 31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78); and
| | - |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | The information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
| | - |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                          
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: June 26, 2008                                                                      
|                                                                                          
|/s/ Alan H. Cohen                                                                         
|Alan H. Cohen Chairman and Chief Executive Officer                                        
|                                                                                          
|/s/ Kevin S. Wampler                                                                      
|Kevin S. Wampler Executive Vice-President, Chief
Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary
(logo) pwc

 

 

 

 

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

 

 

To the Board of Directors and shareholders of CoreLogic, Inc.:

 

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance, that CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc. (the "Company"), an indirect subsidiary of CoreLogic, Inc. complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for all loans for commercial mortgage loan outsourcing customers for which the Company served as the commercial tax service provider (the "Platform"), as of December 31, 2014 and for the year then ended, only including 1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(ii), 1122(d)(2)(v), 1122(d)(2)(vi), 1122(d)(2)(vii), 1122(d)(4)(xi), 1122(d)(4)(xii) and 1122(d)(4)(xiii), which the Company has determined are applicable to the servicing activities performed by it with respect to the Platform. Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion based on our examination. 

 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company performed those selected activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedures were limited to the selected servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria. 

 

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2014 for all loans for commercial mortgage loan outsourcing customers for which the Company served as the commercial tax service provider is fairly stated, in all material respects. 

 

 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

February 11, 2015

 

 

 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 1800, Dallas, TX 75201-2997

T: (214) 999 1400, F: (214)754 7991, www.pwc.com/us
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 on Form 10-Q of Health
Fitness Corporation (the "Company") for the period ended September 30, 2006, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 14, 2006 (the
"Periodic Report"), I, Jerry V. Noyce, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
hereby 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 Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in
            all material respects, the financial condition and results of
            operations of the Company.

/s/ Jerry V. Noyce

Jerry V. Noyce
Chief Executive Officer
November 14, 2006
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Merhawi Hagos HAILE, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 06-30492.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 3, 2007.*

Filed Dec. 26, 2007.

*3Helen J. Brunner, Esq., Todd L. Green-berg, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Lee Coveil, Seattle, WA, for Defendant Appellant.

Before: McKEOWN and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges and SCHWARZER,** District Judge.

*

 This panel unanimously agrees that this case is appropriate for submission without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

**

 The Honorable William W. Schwarzer, Senior United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Merhawi Hagos Haile appeals from his 84-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742, and we affirm.

Haile argues that the district court relied on unproven firearms allegations in determining his sentence. Haile misperceives the district court’s reasoning. The district court’s statement about Haile’s “involvement in firearms” was not a factual finding that Haile possessed any firearms; rather, it was simply a general comment on the danger Haile posed by merely being present around firearms and drugs. All the instances referred to by the district court are documented in the presentence report, which Haile did not challenge.

The record shows that the district court noted its obligation to impose a sentence in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 factors and not only mentioned, but discussed, the Sentencing Guidelines range, the nature and circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant, the need to protect the public, and what kind of sentence would provide sufficient deterrence. *See Rita v. United States,*— U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2468, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007) (“The sentencing judge should set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that he has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal decisionmaking authority.”). The sentence imposed was not unreasonable.

Finally, even if Haile’s failure to raise his Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(i)(3)(B) argument until his reply brief is not construed as constituting a waiver of the issue, to the extent that the district court should have specifically resolved Haile’s objections to the overt acts at the sentencing hearing, it did not plainly err in failing to do so. *See United States v. Anderson,*472 F.3d 662, *4668 (9th Cir.2006) (noting that issues raised for the first time in an appellant’s reply brief are generally deemed waived); Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b) (setting forth the plain error standard).

AFFIRMED.

***

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