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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         326,777
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,928,843
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,063,412
<INVENTORY>                                  1,543,587
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,847,581
<PP&E>                                       2,159,375
<DEPRECIATION>                                 765,223
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,729,404
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,437,232
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    13,821,896
<OTHER-SE>                                (14,887,332)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,729,404
<SALES>                                        657,239
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               849,498
<CGS>                                          595,902
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,086,610
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,742,277
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                10,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             151,243
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,130,632)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,130,632)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,130,632)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.38)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
exv10w13





Exhibit 10.13



PENSION BENEFITS FOR DAVID N. WEIDMAN




     The following is a description of the pension benefits to which David N. Weidman, President
and Chief Executive Officer of Celanese Corporation (the “Company”) will be entitled to participate
as part of his compensation package with the Company, as described in Mr. Weidman’s employment
agreement (the “Employment Agreement”), which was filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
as Exhibit 10.25 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004.
Although Mr. Weidman’s Employment Agreement expired pursuant to its terms on December 31, 2007, the
pension benefits awarded pursuant to his Employment Agreement have vested and are still effective
as of the date of this filing. This description is provided pursuant to Item 601(b)(10)(iii) of
Regulation S-K.



     Pursuant to the terms of the Employment Agreement, Mr. Weidman is entitled to participate in
the same pension benefit formula on substantially similar terms as the former members of the board
of managers for Celanese AG, the Company’s indirect subsidiary, as summarized below.



     The promised pension benefit becomes fully vested once Mr. Weidman attains five (5) years of
Company service and is paid after Mr. Weidman leaves the Company or reaches the age of 60,
whichever is later. The amount of the pension is calculated as the product of the escalation factor
of 1.8% , the number of qualifying years of service and the pensionable income. In this
calculation, the number of qualifying years of service is limited to 30. Consequently, the maximum
figure is 54% of the pensionable income. Qualifying years of service are all complete years of
service since September 1, 2000, spent in Celanese Corporation and its subsidiaries and in Hoechst
Aktiengesellschaft and its subsidiaries.



     The pensionable income is calculated as the sum of the average basic annual salary of the last
three calendar years prior to retirement and the average annual bonus of the last three calendar
years prior to retirement insofar as these shall be qualifying years of service.



     The following are offset against this pension: (i) payments under all other qualified and
non-qualified plans paid by the Company and its affiliates (excluding payments attributable to
employee contributions) and (ii) social security pension benefits acquired during qualified years
of service at a rate of 50%.



     In the event of an early disability, the pension benefit is paid for the duration of the
disability. From the age of 60 onwards, the payment is continued at the same level as an old-age
pension in case the disability persists. In the event of death, the pension is to be paid to the
spouse and unmarried children entitled to maintenance. All other Celanese-financed benefits, if
any, are offset against the survivors’ pension.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1625

JESSIE B. HAYES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM J. HENDERSON, Postmaster General; UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-00-2027-2-18AJ) Submitted: August 9, 2001 Decided: August 14, 2001 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jessie B. Hayes, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Parkwood Griffith, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Jessie B. Hayes appeals the district court’s order dismissing her civil action alleging employment discrimination. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Hayes v. Henderson , No. CA-00-2027-2-18AJ (D.S.C. filedApr. 5, 2000; entered Apr. 6, 2001). 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.

AFFIRMED
#### In the Matter of Patricia E.K., Respondent, v Edward Thomas K., Jr., Appellant, and Heidi K., Respondent.

Submitted December 10, 2007;

decided February 7, 2008

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF JUNE 30, 2000 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
OPERATIONS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THIS FORM 10-QSB
FOR PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 2000.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       1,377,180
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     48,639
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,453,631
<PP&E>                                         250,508
<DEPRECIATION>                                 150,956
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,639,140
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,252,802
<BONDS>                                      2,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        78,074
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,691,735)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               (1,639,140)
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                36,128
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,873,211
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               627,906
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              37,455
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,502,444)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,502,444)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,502,444)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.33)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.33)


</TABLE>
1 In The


### Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________ N O . 09

- 22

- 00343

- CV

__________________ SAM

- CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, LLC , Appellant

V.

MARICELA SALAZAR

- LINARES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF MARTIN LINARES

- SEGURA , Appellee

__________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 16 3rd District Court Orange County, Texas Trial Cause No. B19 0 455

- C

__________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION

S AM

- Construction Services, LLC
, Appellant, filed an unopposed motion to

dismiss this accelerated appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1). Appellant filed the

motion befo re the appellate court issued a decision in the appeal. We grant the
motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).2 APPEAL DISM I SSED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on December 21, 2022 Opinion Delivered December 22
, 2022
Before Kreger, Horton and Johnson, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6783

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LARRY ANTHONY LADSON, JR.,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Greenville. Donald C. Coggins, Jr., District Judge. (6:18-cr-00181-DCC-1; 6:21-cv00503-DCC)

Submitted: March 16, 2023 Decided: March 21, 2023

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry Anthony Ladson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6783 Doc: 5 Filed: 03/21/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Larry Anthony Ladson, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief 

on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. 

Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. 

Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ladson has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the 

appeal. 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. 

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6783 Doc: 5 Filed: 03/21/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
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 Annual Report of HQ Sustainable Maritime Industries, Inc; (the Company) on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Jean-Pierre Dallaire Chief Accounting 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:

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

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

Dated: March 27, 2007



|                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Jean-Pierre Dallaire                         
|Jean-Pierre Dallaire Principal Accounting
Officer
OFFICE OF **TNE** ATTORNEY GENERAL OF **TEXAS** AUSTINhe eormyea mre +0 oar priraner, - ._ ._

Artlola 1029. part aa fol&w*a, 1

"2. lp0r or aappia* l . mile for rash 

### 6a in g6:ng to the pus6 et *meet; aaa 

### for ooavoylng oaah primmer to jail) he ehhrll remin tam eU68go

prorfdrd

in l uMiri8ion

4. 03 . . .î . . .

## Bon. a. A. Bodg@m* Qage s

Unbar the oonetructian pl8aad upon tha 

### ?orsgehg mileage pr~viclionm or Artlale 10089, mupn thim Deparwmt, the o??iaer im *od ~r8rlously ibUm Or ailo*ed ?iva oaatr pu a118

r inig and a tote1 or twenty-el@t ouitm 

### pu rtl* rstur~~ing rourtoen oantcr

for the oiilaar atidiourteen aantm for tb* 7, rianor) for oaoh &fro motually ma4 a8aemmarIly trsveled. binford T. iroblamon, 844 5. 3. &O?) Artlola lOe0, aoa0 of Cririnal~Pmeaduro, 

### roabmIn part a@ tollarm:

## *Shrrrirrrati Conrtab188 meming proaar8 and

8ttradlag any eraratning oeurt in the exaalnation of any rsloay oaae, 8hll be wtftld to muah ?oa8 

### am are fir04 by lmw for mIml&r 8onio88 In mlmdmwaor oamomla oounty court to bo 

### aid b tbo &ate, not to eta006 Tbar aad Loo/l00 44.08 Do& f f trm In my on* same, and milugo aOtu8lly ca4 neaommadlp 

### traralrb in a;oiu to the pleor a? erramt, and ?Or 4enrrtin& the pri8OaU or prhonlm to 

### jella8 provide4 in ArtiblLu

1089 aBd 10.090, Ccde 0r Crlrtfml &oa*dur4,
. . ." The oounty o??Ial~l8 o? ~ilU8m8on County are oomp8mate4 on an azmual 

### l

alary berim 8ne tha proaiaat o??ieer~ uo amQ~##t86 011a fw b8818. Am the mbui?? im aompen.ate4 on ma aaawl m&lazy bed@, ho in matitlml LO RO fw rrtrrtmoeru rolmtlr~ to the above moattone6 Qw8tioa8. 3eotfon S, Article SOlPe, Vermm~m Amotatod Civil statut*mr Ylth rs;teronam to the ire8 that the oonrtablo rho l8 001. pwmatea on 

### a roe ba.828 aentionea gUomtio5ll, we I8 ontitlod to, rolatlm to the 8bore
. *amwu your lnpufry em r0iLa8r 1. Tha fonmtable I8 *atILl* to'flra sanL8 

### per mile

_ - going to Lhe plwe or l

### re8L In a raMmy 

### aaim. 2. ina returning the prironor in a telony 6858, tho ocnstablo 1~ entitled to fourtaaa omit@ for hilareL?8nd tourtern oentm additiorial icr a~

### prtmenu, a tot81 0r twenty-mtght aentr for convrylng the prlacner to jaf2. Pmvlded, however, the conatable is traveling otbarwi88 t&m by nilroa6.

### SYS



# 9 ATTORNEY GENXRAL Or' TEXAS
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED FEBRUARY 10, 202 1

NO. 03

- 19

- 00087

- CR

Appellant, The State of Texas// Cross

- Appellant, Saul Jaquez

v.

Appellee, Saul Jaquez// Cross

- Appellee, The State of Texas

APPEAL FROM THE 207TH DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES TRIANA AND SMITH AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE

This is an appeal and cross appeal from the jud gment of convicti on re n d ered by the trial court.

Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no

reversible error in the trial court’s judgment

. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s

judgment

. Each party shall pay the costs of appeal incurred by that party, both in this Court and

in the court below.
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 Annual Report of HQ Sustainable Maritime Industries, Inc; (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Norbert Sporns, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

Dated: March 19, 2007



|                                      
|--------------------------------------
|/s/ Norbert Sporns                    
|Norbert Sporns Chief Executive
Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       4,349,658
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,416,263
<PP&E>                                         220,019
<DEPRECIATION>                                 140,376
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,703,473
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          116,847
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,263
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,582,363
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,703,473
<SALES>                                         15,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                15,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  256,035
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             (241,035)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (132,163)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (132,163)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (132,163)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.04)
        


</TABLE>
#### In re: Mindy Jaye ZIED-CAMPBELL, Petitioner.

No. 08-2613.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R.App. P. June 12, 2008.

Filed June 27, 2008.

Mindy Jaye Zied-Campbell, Philadelphia, PA, pro se.

Michael L. Harvey, Esq., Harrisburg, PA, for Estelle Richman, Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, Stephanie Ludwig, Supervisor, York County Assistance Office, Yvette Kane.

Before: SLOVITER, FISHER and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Mindy Jaye Zied-Campbell presents a mandamus petition through which she challenges some of the District Court’s decisions in her civil rights suit. Specifically, she argues that the District Court violated a clear duty on April 23, 2008, when it denied her request to waive PACER 1 fees. She also contends that the District Court should have granted her motion for reconsideration and vacated its March 30, 2007, 2007 WL 1031399, order granting in part and denying in part the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. She asks that we issue a writ of mandamus requiring the District Court to vacate its orders of March 30, 2007, and April 23, 2008, 2008 WL 1883063.

We will deny Zied-Campbell’s mandamus petition. Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. *See Kerr v. U.S. Dist.Court,*426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976). Within the discretion of the issuing court, mandamus traditionally may be “used ... only ‘to confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or to compel it to exercise its authority when it is its duty to do so.’ ” *Id.*(citations omitted). To win mandamus relief for a “judicial usurpation of power” or a “clear abuse of discretion,” a petitioner must show that she has “no other adequate means to attain the desired relief,” (so as to prevent the writ from being used a substitute for appeal) and “a right to the writ [that] is clear and indis*999putable.” *Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court,*542 U.S. 867, 380-81, 124 S.Ct. 2576, 159 L.Ed.2d 459 (2004) (citations omitted); see also *In re Patenaude,*210 F.3d 135, 141 (3d Cir.2000).

Zied-Campbell, who asks us to direct the District Court to vacate its orders, attempts to shoe-horn an appeal into a petition for writ of mandamus. However, mandamus is not a substitute for appeal. *See Cheney,*542 U.S. at 380, 124 S.Ct. 2576; *Madden v. Myers,*102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir.1996). Zied-Campbell cannot show that she is without an adequate means for relief. At some time, she may renew her arguments that she showed cause for a waiver of the PACER fees and that the District Court abused its discretion in denying her motion for reconsideration in an appeal from the District Court’s decisions. Accordingly, mandamus relief is not appropriate here.

1

. PACER, an acronym for Public Access to Electronic Records, is a service that provides electronic access via the Internet to case and docket information from the federal courts.
#### Bate Refrigerating Co. *v.*Eastman.

*(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.*

September 5, 1881.)

Patents — Attachment Denied,

Where there is so much doubt on the question of infringement as to require that the new apparatus be embraced in a new suit, the motion for an attachment will be denied.

Blatchford, C. J.

In view of the state of the art as shown in the prior patents, referred to on the hearing of the motion for injunction, and of the construction which Judge Nixon found to be the proper one on which to sustain the patent as against those prior patents, and of the grounds on which the motion for injunction was granted, and of the fact that no process is claimed in the patent, but the claims are for apparatus having a specific mode of operation, and of the fact that the defendant uses new air all the time, although getting the *903benefit of cooling the new air by the cold of the old air, I think there is so much doubt' on the question of infringement as to require that the new apparatus be embraced in a new suit, and that the motion for attachment be denied.