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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 2ND
QUARTER FORM 10-Q FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 6/30/98 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-25-1997
<CASH>                                             352
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,254
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,721
<INVENTORY>                                     56,499
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                80,846
<PP&E>                                          50,461
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,483
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 211,980
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           58,101
<BONDS>                                        113,287
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     29,610
<COMMON>                                            12
<OTHER-SE>                                      13,728
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   211,980
<SALES>                                         64,190
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                64,190
<CGS>                                           43,647
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   43,647
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                28,165
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,805
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (13,460)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (2,162)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,892)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.28)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 21.1

Subsidiaries of FS Investment Corporation III



|                               |  |                                       
|------------------------------ |  | --------------------------------------
|Name of Subsidiary             |  | State of Incorporation or Organization
|Burholme Funding LLC           |  | Delaware                              
|Center City Funding LLC        |  | Delaware                              
|Chestnut Hill Funding LLC      |  | Delaware                              
|Dunlap Funding LLC             |  | Delaware                              
|Germantown Funding LLC         |  | Delaware                              
|Jefferson Square Funding LLC   |  | Delaware                              
|FSIC III Investments, Inc.     |  | Delaware                              
|IC III Arches Investments, LLC |  | Delaware                              
|IC III Altus Investments, LLC  |  | Delaware                              
|Society Hill Funding LLC       |  | Delaware
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND

#### Georgia Fay Talbot v. William W. Martin, Jr., and C. Kent Titus

October 1, 1984

Case No. LH-46

By JUDGE WILLARD I. WALKER

I have decided to enter judgment in this case upon the jury verdict of one million dollars against both defendants, jointly and severally.

As we all know, there has been much discussion in the circuit courts of Virginia and elsewhere as to the constitutionality of the monetary limitation (the cap) imposed by Code of Virginia § 8.01-581.15. In fact, I have been informed that a case in which that issue has been raised has been argued before the Supreme Court of Virginia and is ripe for decision.

I have thought in the past, and have so ruled, that the Supreme Court of Virginia would uphold the constitutionality of that statute; however, I now feel that a stronger argument is made by my present position.

In this case, there is also the issue of applying a single limit on more than one defendant. The language of § 8.01-581.15 leaves room for doubt that a single limit should apply with multiple defendants. Logic, as well as analysis of the words used, dictates that a single limit should not apply where the combined action of two or more health care providers are responsible for a single indivisible injury. Assuming the constitutionality of *166the statute, it makes sense to limit recovery against one health care provider, no matter how severe the injury, to preserve competent health care in this Commonwealth; but where, as here, the injuries clearly justify an award in excess of the statutory limitation, and two health care providers by different and separate acts of negligence have caused these injuries, allowing the maximum recovery as to each health care provider seems warranted. Actually, such a ruling may tend to preserve the constitutionality of the statute, a desirable result.

The appeal bond in this case will be one million dollars, but St. Paul’s Insurance Company may, itself, post the bond without outside surety. The bond must be posted within twenty-one days from September 28, 1984.

The final order in this case was entered September 28, 1984, and with the agreement of counsel the transcript was ordered to be made part of the record pursuant to provisions of Rule 5:9 of the Supreme Court of Virginia.
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 Charles & Colvard, Ltd.
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James R. Braun, Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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/ James R. Braun                                   
|James R. Braun                                       
|Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer
|August 10, 2004                                      



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Charles & Colvard, Ltd. and will be retained by Charles & Colvard, Ltd. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
*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. 4. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-31185

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

FERNANDO FRAGUELA,

Defendant-Appellant.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 96-339-2-C

 

May 8, 2000

Before GARWOOD, BENAVIDES and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Fernando Fraguela appeals from his jury-verdict conviction

for conspiracy to import cocaine and importation of cocaine. He

argues that: (1) three of the Government witnesses were paid in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(2); (2) the district court erred

by denying his motion for acquittal based on his affirmative

defense of entrapment; (3) the Government’s conduct in arranging

his arrest deprived the district court of jurisdiction to convict

him and violated his rights under the Vienna Convention on
2

Consular Relations; (4) the jury’s guilty verdict was not 

supported by substantial evidence; and (5) the prosecutor

challenged potential jurors solely on account of their race.

Fraguela’s argument regarding his rights under the Vienna

convention, raised for the first time on appeal, is briefed

inadequately. As such, it is deemed abandoned. See Yohey v.

Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993) (arguments must be

briefed adequately in order to be preserved for appeal); see also

Fed. R. App. P. 28 (a)(9)(A) (appellant’s argument must include

citations to the authority and the parts of the record on which

the appellant relies). Our review of his remaining arguments

fails to disclose any reversible error. Accordingly, the

district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
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

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
the undersigned officer of AMF Bowling Worldwide, Inc. (the Company), certifies that:



|1. | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 2, 2006 (the Report) of the Company to which this certification is an exhibit fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of April 2, 2006 and for
the period then ended.
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: May 16, 2006



|                                          
|------------------------------------------
|/s/ William A. McDonnell                  
|William A. McDonnell                      
|Vice President and Chief Financial Officer



49
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2763 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2763

 To amend section 402(a)(2)(M) of the Personal Responsibility and Work 
   Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 to extend by two years the 
      special rule relating to eligibility for benefits under the 
supplemental security income program for certain aliens and victims of 
                              trafficking.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 1, 2011

    Mr. McDermott (for himself and Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend section 402(a)(2)(M) of the Personal Responsibility and Work 
   Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 to extend by two years the 
      special rule relating to eligibility for benefits under the 
supplemental security income program for certain aliens and victims of 
                              trafficking.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF SSI ELIGIBILITY FOR CERTAIN ALIENS AND VICTIMS 
              OF TRAFFICKING.

    Section 402(a)(2)(M) of the Personal Responsibility and Work 
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1612(a)(2)(M)) is 
amended--
            (1) in the subparagraph heading, by striking ``2011'' and 
        inserting ``2013''; and
            (2) in each of clauses (i)(I) and (ii), by striking 
        ``2011'' and inserting ``2013''.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 181 (Wednesday, September 20, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43960-43961]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19985]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural 
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP17-1036-000.
    Applicants: Stagecoach Pipeline & Storage Company LL.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Stagecoach Pipeline & Storage 
Company LLC--Remove Expired Agreements to be effective 10/15/2017.

[[Page 43961]]

    Filed Date: 9/11/17.
    Accession Number: 20170911-5061.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/25/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-1037-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 09/11/17 Negotiated Rates--
Consolidated Edison Energy, Inc. H-2275-89 to be effective 11/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 9/11/17.
    Accession Number: 20170911-5063.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/25/17.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-1038-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 09/11/17 Negotiated Rates--
Freepoint Commodities LLC R-7250-19 to be effective 11/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 9/11/17.
    Accession Number: 20170911-5102.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/25/17.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by 
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above 
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be 
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the 
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing 
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying 
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 
(toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: September 12, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
 Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-19985 Filed 9-19-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-20150

Conference Calendar

 

DAVID J. MORRISON

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

GARY JOHNSON; VICTOR RODRIGUEZ,

Defendants-Appellees.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-00-CV-4028

--------------------

June 14, 2001

Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Texas inmate, David J. Morrison, # 425314, has filed a

motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal,

following the district court’s dismissal as frivolous of his

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By moving for

IFP status, Morrison is challenging the district court’s

certification that IFP status should not be granted on appeal

because his appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v.

Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).
No. 01-20150

-2-

Morrison has failed to challenge specifically the district

court’s finding that his appeal was not taken in good faith and

was legally frivolous. Although this court liberally construes

pro se briefs, see Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir.

1995), the court requires arguments to be briefed in order to be

preserved. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). 

Because Morrison has failed to address the only appealable issue,

the district court’s certification of the appeal as frivolous, he

has abandoned the issue on appeal. See id. 

Morrison’s request for IFP status is DENIED, and his appeal

is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24;

5TH CIR. R. 42.2. The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous

counts as a “strike” for purposes of § 1915(g), as does the

district court’s dismissal of Morrison’s complaint as frivolous. 

See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 385-87 (5th Cir. 1996). 

He therefore has two “strikes” under § 1915(g). Morrison is

WARNED that if he accumulates three “strikes” pursuant to 

§ 1915(g), he may not proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal

filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless

he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See

§ 1915(g). 

IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; STRIKE WARNING

ISSUED
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 32.1

       STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
                      ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

The undersigned, Mary Lynn D. Lenz, is the President and Chief Executive Officer
of Slade's Ferry Bancorp. (the "Company"). This statement is being furnished in
connection with the filing by the Company of the Company's Annual Report on Form
10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 (the "Report").

By execution of this statement, I certify that:

      1)    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or
            78o(d)); and

      2)    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of
            operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods
            covered by the Report.

This statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the Report so that
this statement will accompany the Report at such time as the Report is filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not intended that this
statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended.

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


March 30, 2007                                /s/ Mary Lynn D. Lenz
------------------                            ---------------------------------
(Date)                                        Mary Lynn D. Lenz
                                              President/Chief Executive Officer
#### *In re*Pevear and another, Bankrupts.

*(District Court, N. D. New York.*

1884.)

•Bankruptcy—Fraud—Amteged Retaining or Money and Effects ry Bankrupt.

In a proceeding against a bankrupt by Ills assignee for an alleged retaining of money and effects, fraud being charged and a summary remedy demanded, the court, should be clearly satisfied that the accusations of the petition are sustained by the proof.

In September, 1880, the assignees of the above-named bankrupts presented to the court a petition representing that the bankrupts had fraudulently concealed and withheld from them $10,500 in money, besides a large amount of merchandise. The petitioner’s prayer is for an order directing the bankrupt to pay over said sum and return said merchandise. The court thereupon made an order referring it to the register in charge to take proof of the allegations of the petition and report the same to the court with his conclusions *122thereon. On the fifteenth of May, 1884, the register made his report, in which he found that no money belonging to the assignees has been withheld by the bankrupts or either of them. The case is now before the court on exceptions filed to the said report.

*Henry M. Field,*for assignees.

*Daniel L. Benton,*for bankrupts.

Coxe, J.

It cannot be said, upon the evidence submitted, that the register has reached an incorrect conclusion. In a proceeding of this nature, where fraud is charged and a summary remedy demanded, the court should be clearly satisfied that the accusations of the petition are sustained by the proof. The evidence is not of this convincing character. It is contradictory, conjectural, and replete with inaccuracies. It eannot be said that fraud on the part of the bankrupts has been so clearly established that the court would be justified in making the order asked for in the petition.

I do not think that the findings of the register should be disturbed.

Exceptions overruled.
<PAGE>
 
                                 Exhibit 21.2
                      AWARD SOFTWARE INTERNATIONAL, INC.

                                 SUBSIDIARIES
<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 

                                                                               Name Under Which
Complete Name of Subsidiaries        Jurisdiction of Incorporation          Subsidiary Does Business
-----------------------------        -----------------------------          ------------------------
<S>                                        <C>                              <C>  
Award Software Hong Kong Limited             Hong Kong                       Award Software Hong Kong Limited

Award Software Japan KK                      Japan                           Award Software Japan KK

Unicore Software, Inc.                       Delaware                        Unicore Software, Inc.

Microid Research, Inc.                       California                      Microid Research, Inc.
</TABLE>