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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF
OPERATIONS OF LTI HOLDINGS, INC. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       1,050,150
<SECURITIES>                                   997,025
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,096,809
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,096,809
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          139,286
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        31,851
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,925,672
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,096,809
<SALES>                                        553,002
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               553,002
<CGS>                                          399,341
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  399,341
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               517,566
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 719
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (679,651)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (679,651)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.24)


</TABLE>
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 20

- 3115

_____________________________ G UARDIANSHIP OF M ARGARET S ANDERS and the Guardian
, C LEDITH S ANDERS , Appellant,

v.

J UDITH L. C OWART , Esquire
, Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Jack Schemer , Judge

. September 8, 2021

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
R AY , M AKAR , and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Kevin S. Sanders, Kevin S. Sanders, LLC, Jacksonville
, for Appellant.

Judi Cowart, Atlantic Beach
, Appellee.
#### Ronald SEARCY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Anthony F. SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 07-12030

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Jan. 18, 2008.

Ronald Searcy, Moore Haven, FL, pro se.

Before TJOFLAT, CARNES and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Ronald Searcy is serving a fifteen-year sentence in a Florida prison following a plea of guilty in the Miami-Dade County Circuit Court to a three-count information charging him with tampering with evidence, i.e., narcotics, obstructing a police officer while the officer was engaged in arresting Searcy, and attempting to flee from the officer. He is presently appealing his convictions to the Florida District Court of Appeal.

Proceeding *pro se,*Searcy brought this law suit against the circuit judge who presided over his case, and the lawyer he retained privately to defend him, alleging that the judge denied him his federal constitutional rights in handling the case and the lawyer denied him the effective assistance of counsel, in violation of the federal constitution. The district court referred the matter to a magistrate judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation (“R & R”), recommending that the court dismiss the case for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The court adopted the R & R as part of its decision, and dismissed the case. Searcy now appeals.

We find no merit in Searcy’s complaint for the reasons stated in the R *&*R, and therefore affirm the court’s judgment.1

AFFIRMED.

1

. Searcy challenges the court’s decision denying him leave to amend his complaint to add his wife as a party. The challenge is frivolous.
**Exhibit 4.7**

***Summary of BSA Plan***

Similar toshare options, non-employee warrants, or BSAs, entitle a holder to exercise the warrant for the underlying vested shares at an exercise price per share determined by our board of directors and at least equal to the fair market value of an ordinaryshare on the date of grant. In addition to any exercise price payable by a holder upon the exercise of any non-employee warrant, non-employee warrants need to be subscribed for at a price at least equal to ten percent (10%) of the exerciseprice of the underlying ordinary shares, which subscription price is meant to reflect at least the fair market value of the applicable warrants on the date of grant. There is no legal limitation to the size of the non-employee warrant pool. 

***Administration.*** Pursuant to delegations granted at our annual shareholders’ meeting, our board of directors determines the recipients,dates of grant and exercise price of non-employee warrants, the number of non-employee warrants to be granted and the terms and conditions of the non-employee warrants, including the period of their exercisability and their vesting schedule. Theboard of directors has the authority to extend the post-termination exercise period of non-employee warrants after the end of the term of office. 

***Non-Employee Warrants*****.******** Our non-employee warrants are generally granted subject to a vesting schedule providing for either:(1) 1/24th at the expiration of each month following the date of grant, subject to continued service, if granted to the advisory board members, or (2) 1/3 to be vested on the date of grant and 1/3 to vest each year following the date ofappointment of the relevant director, if granted to the independent directors, in both cases subject to continued service. The term of non-employee warrants is ten years from the date of grant or, in the case of death or disability of thebeneficiary during such ten-year period, six months from the death or disability of the beneficiary. Unless a longer period is specified in the notice of grant or otherwise resolved by the board of directors, a non-employee warrant shall remainexercisable for one month following a beneficiary’s termination with the Company. 

Non-employee warrants may be transferred to any person and may beexercised by their holder at any time subject to vesting and any other grant conditions, as applicable. 

***Change in Control*****.** Most ofour non-employee warrants provide that in the event of a change in control, as defined in the relevant grant documents, unvested warrants will automatically vest in full. 

*******Initial Public Offering*********.** Certain non-employee warrants granted by us became immediately exercisable upon completion of ourinitial public offering.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

               CERTIFICATION OF ROBERT J. CHAMBERLAIN 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 Onyx Software Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Robert J. Chamberlain,
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.

Date: November 9, 2005

By:  /s/ ROBERT J. CHAMBERLAIN
     ------------------------------------------
          ROBERT J. CHAMBERLAIN

          CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

                                       39
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk January 30, 2012

y0123 

# Order

January 30, 2012

143923

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 143923 COA: 297660 Oakland CC: 09-228117-FC JASON NEWCOMBE HAYES, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 19, 2011 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Alvin GOODMAN, Jr., Appellant.

No. 07-2896.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 4, 2008.

Filed: Feb. 5, 2008.

Michael P. Norris, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Omaha, NE, for Appellee.

Alvin Goodman Jr., South Sioux City, NE, pro se.

Karen Marie Shanahan, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Omaha, NE, for Appellant.

Before BYE, M. SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, Alvin Goodman, Jr., challenges the reasonableness of the 12-month prison sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to resisting, opposing, impeding, and interfering with a federal officer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111(a). He argues that the district court committed a clear error of judgment by unduly focusing on his criminal history and inadequately considering his recent law-abiding conduct.

We conclude that Goodman’s 12-month prison sentence is reasonable and not an abuse of the district court’s discretion because the court properly took into account only relevant sentencing factors and did not commit a clear error of judgment in weighing those factors. *See*18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (factors to consider in imposing sentence); *Rita v. United States,*-U.S.-, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2462-69, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007) (allowing appellate presumption of reasonableness for sentences within Guidelines range; district court’s sentencing analysis was legally sufficient when record showed that court listened to each argument and considered evidence in support of sentence below advisory Guidelines range, even though court did not elaborate on its reasons); *United States v. Boss,*493 F.3d 986, 987 (8th Cir.2007) (reasonableness of sentence reviewed for abuse of discretion); *United States v. Haack,*403 F.3d 997, 1003-04 (8th Cir.2005) (listing circumstances in which abuse of discretion may occur).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

1

. The Honorable F.A. Gossett, III, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Nebraska presided over this misdemeanor prosecution pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3401.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAF. AUSTIN

Honorable John S. Baker County **Auditor** Lnmnr county Paris, Texas Deal-sir:

fun8 to taks aare
90, repuestlng an stated quasCionreade

aereag* 'en

WI&& si0w

due a lkrg0~stl%oir'de-' IlnQaent taies* *f w&l& like t6 know if we ualz legally eppropriate this money, derlimd irm delinC&ent tax oollwC&z36, it and *en oC&leotiebto the gsneral hid t6 take oaxe of the &made mabe upon tue rwi."Ffonorqble John 5. dkor, Page 2

This departmenthas heretoforeruled on a **question** vry almilar to the questionpreeentedin your inquiry in OpinionNo. O-869. We enolose **a** oopy of said opinion **for** your fnr0mdf0n. In view or the authoritieeoited in **said Opinion**  **Ho.** O-869, it is our opinion that **pour qUki8tiO!l**  should **be answered**  ln the negative.andIs so enewered.

Trusting that the roregolngrap anewer~your in**qulry** , wo are Yours very truly ATTORNEYUi%ERALO~l'E2%S

APPROVED DEC 5,19W Urorer Sellers /a/ FIRfiT ASS1STANT **ATTORHISYG- ’**  m %8ell Wlllianm **AStliutaIlt**

APPROVED

OPIRION fX#MIl!TRP, BY B.V.8 CHA-
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-41115 Conference Calendar

DALE N. SMITH, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus R.E. HOLT, WARDEN; BUREAU OF PRISONS; UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION; US GOVERNMENT, Respondents-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:98-CV-1489

- - - - - - - - - - June 17, 1999 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Dale Noel Smith, federal inmate # 90045-132, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Smith moves for leave to supplement his brief on appeal and for an expedited ruling on his appeal. The motions are DENIED. Federal prisoners must exhaust “administrative remedies before seeking habeas relief in federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.” Fuller v. Rich , 11 F.3d 61, 62 (5th Cir. 1994). WeNo. 98-41115 -2- review the dismissal of a § 2241 petition for failure to exhaust for an abuse of discretion. Id. Smith contends that he exhausted his administrative remedies and that he should not be held responsible for Respondents’ failure to follow the proper procedure. The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies requires a prisoner to pursue all “prescribed administrative remedies which might provide appropriate relief . . . prior to seeking relief in the federal courts.” Smith v. Thompson , 937 F.2d 217, 219 (5th Cir. 1991)(internal quotation and citation omitted). The record shows that Smith did not complete the administrative appeals procedure. The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Smith’s petition. Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit
      32.1**





CERTIFICATION
      OF PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of ATSI Communications, Inc. on Form
      10-QSB/A for the period ending April 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Arthur L. Smith, President and Chief
      Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C, ss. 1350,
      as
      adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,





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





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





By
      /s/
      Arthur L. Smith


Arthur
      L.
      Smith


President
      and


Chief
      Executive Officer


April
      14,
      2006
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF AMERICAN RESIDENTIAL SERVICES, INC. AND
SUBSIDIARIES 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-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           2,872
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,153
<ALLOWANCES>                                       953
<INVENTORY>                                     12,138
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                43,650
<PP&E>                                          40,562
<DEPRECIATION>                                  20,359
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 197,491
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           27,242
<BONDS>                                         54,341
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            12
<OTHER-SE>                                     112,214
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   197,491
<SALES>                                         55,446
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                55,446
<CGS>                                           38,955
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   38,955
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,572
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,110
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                       441
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                559
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       527
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .04
        

</TABLE>
#### Leland JAMISON, Plaintiff-Appellant v. DRIVE TIME SALES AND FINANCE CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 07-10463

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 8, 2008.

Leland Jamison, pro se.

William E. Hartsfield, Hamilton & Hartsfield, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before KING, DAVIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Plaintiff-appellant Leland Jamison was an employee of defendant-appellee Drive Time Sales and Finance Corporation. Both were parties to a Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate Claims, whereby the parties agreed “to arbitrate all past, present or future Claims” against each other. After defendant terminated plaintiff’s employment, plaintiff instituted a partially successful arbitration proceeding. The arbitrator granted plaintiffs claim for discriminatory discharge, denied his remaining claims, and awarded plaintiff nominal and punitive damages in the amount of $25,001. Defendant paid the award on July 20, 2006.

Not happy with partial success, plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit' premised on the same facts and claims as the arbitration proceeding. The district court, recognizing that the claims were, or should have been, arbitrated, concluded that the claims were barred by res judicata, and dismissed them with prejudice. Alternatively, the court held that even if the claims were not barred by res judicata, they were nevertheless subject to dismissal because they were covered by the Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate Claims and would have to be arbitrated.

On appeal, plaintiff chronicles a number of allegedly race-based employment problems that beset him. But, as the district court correctly held, all those problems are based on “the same nucleus of operative facts” as the claims litigated in the arbitration proceeding, arose during the same time period as those claims, and involve the same players. The district court cor*714rectly concluded that the claims springing from those problems are barred by res judicata and that, even if they are not so barred, they would be subject to the arbitration requirement of the Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate Claims.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Universal Hospital Services, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Rex T.
Clevenger, Chief Financial 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) 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/ Rex T. Clevenger                           
|Rex T. Clevenger                               
|Senior Vice President & Chief Financial Officer
|August 12, 2005