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


<ARTICLE>                     5


<S>                                                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                             9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                                   DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                                      JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                                        SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                                                  (1,069)
<SECURITIES>                                                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                          195,800
<ALLOWANCES>                                                                 0
<INVENTORY>                                                                  0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                       194,731
<PP&E>                                                                  58,518
<DEPRECIATION>                                                          20,331
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                         969,649
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                  490,444
<BONDS>                                                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                        0
<PREFERRED>                                                                 76
<COMMON>                                                             1,996,197
<OTHER-SE>                                                          (1,517,068)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                           969,649
<SALES>                                                                      0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                             0
<CGS>                                                                        0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                            5,331
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                        28,198
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                           0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                        (17,585)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                    (17,585)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                              0
<CHANGES>                                                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                                           (17,585)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                           (0.006)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                           (0.006)




</TABLE>
#### Peter JEFFERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John TUTEUR, Assessor of Napa County, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 06-15406.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 5, 2007 *.

Filed Dec. 19, 2007.

Carleton L. Briggs, Esq., Santa Rosa, CA, Russell A. Robinson, Law Offices, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Gary M. Lepper, Esq., Lepper & Harrington, Walnut Creek, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: FARRIS, BEEZER, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Peter Jefferson appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment *11in favor of John Tuteur. We review de novo, *Qwest Commc’ns., Inc. v. City of Berkeley,*438 F.3d 1253, 1256 (9th Cir.2006), and affirm. The parties are familiar with the facts and we do not repeat them here.

Jefferson alleges that Tuteur, the Napa County assessor, deprived Jefferson of property by failing to issue a notice of reassessment of his property. A protected property interest is present when an individual has a reasonable expectation of entitlement deriving from “existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law.” *Bd. of Regents v. Roth,*408 U.S. 564, 577, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972). Jefferson’s property has been properly reassessed and he has received tax refunds based upon that reassessment. Jefferson was awarded attorney’s fees based upon Tuteur’s earlier failure to properly carry out the Napa County Superior Court’s order. Jefferson received actual notice of the reassessment and successfully applied for a reduction in the reassessed property’s valuation. Jefferson fails to show that he has been deprived of any constitutionally cognizable property interest.

Jefferson alleges that Tuteur retaliated against him for exercising his right to petition for redress of grievances. Deliberate retaliation by state actors against an individual’s exercise of the right to petition is actionable under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. *Soranno’s Gasco, Inc. v. Morgan,*874 F.2d 1310, 1314 (9th Cir.1989). There is no evidence in the record that retaliation was a substantial or motivating factor in Tuteur’s failure to issue the notice of reassessment. *See Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle,*429 U.S. 274, 287, 97 S.Ct. 568, 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977). Even if Tuteur’s actions were motivated by retaliation, Jefferson was not actually deprived of any constitutional rights. He successfully petitioned the Board for a new valuation of his property. Without an actual deprivation of a constitutional right, Jefferson’s section 1983 claim for retaliation fails. *Soranno’s Gasco, Inc.,*874 F.2d at 1313-14.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Jefferson’s motion to amend his complaint because amendment would have been futile. *See Saul v. United States,*928 F.2d 829, 843 (9th Cir.1991).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                         CERTIFICATION OF VICE PRESIDENT
                               BIRCH BRANCH, INC.
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

     In connection with the Annual Report of Birch Branch, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, George
A. Powell, Vice President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to
the best of my knowledge:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d), as applicable, 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/ George A. Powell
George A. Powell
Vice President, Secretary and Director
October 12, 2005
EXHIBIT
      32





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350











We, each hereby certify to the best of
our knowledge that the Amended Annual Report of Form 10-K/A of Gateway Tax
Credit Fund II, Ltd. for the year ended March 31, 2008 containing the financial
statements fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o (d)) and that information
contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Gateway.








/s/ Ronald M.
      Diner
              Ronald
      M. Diner
              President
              Raymond
      James Tax Credit Funds, Inc.
              (Managing
      General Partner)
              January
      20, 2009/s/ Jonathan
      Oorlog
              Jonathan
      Oorlog
              Vice
      President and Chief Financial Officer
              Raymond
      James Tax Credit Funds, Inc.
              (Managing
      General Partner)
              January
      20, 2009
# Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas

November 24, 2021

No. 04

- 21

- 00451

- CV

Kody KOTHMANN , as Trustee of the Kody Kothmann 1992 Irrevocable Trust, Appellant

v.

Carl MENZIES and Steve Menzies, as Trustee of the Perry P. Menzies and Mary Louise Menzies Living Trust, Appellees

From the 452nd District Court

, Menard County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020

- 05655 Honorable Robert Hoffman , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On November 9, 2021, we advised Appellant that the complained of order did not appear to be a final order, and we ordered Appellant to show cause why we have jurisdiction in this appeal.

Appellant’s timely response acknowledged that the order was not fina l. Appellant moved to dismiss the appeal, or in the alternative, asked for additional time for the district court to sign a final judgment.

We granted Appellant’s motion for additional time for the trial court to sign a final judgment, which it did on N ovember 17, 2021, and a supplemental clerk’s record containing the final judgment was filed on November 24, 2021.

We REINSTATE this appeal on this court’s docket. We set Appellant’s brief due on December 27, 2021.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto se t my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 24th day of November, 2021

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CURRENCY>                              U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                 MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                    1.000
<CASH>                                         5,424,135
<SECURITIES>                                   6,180,427
<RECEIVABLES>                                          0
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              11,724,962
<PP&E>                                           586,909
<DEPRECIATION>                                         0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                13,707,756
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,269,425
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                          77,204
<OTHER-SE>                                    12,327,734
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  13,707,756
<SALES>                                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 160,224
<CGS>                                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    763,869
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (603,645)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (603,645)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (603,645)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      (0.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (0.08)
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1     Section 1350 Certification of Chief Executive Officer.


In connection with the periodic report of Optika Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Mark K. Ruport, President and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely
for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code,
that to the best of my knowledge:

         (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
         15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.

           8/13/2003                        /s/   Mark K. Ruport
      ------------------            ------------------------------------
            (Date)                             Mark K. Ruport
                                     President, Chief Executive Officer
                                                and Chairman of the Board
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2618 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2618

To enhance certain prohibitions and penalties relating to certain forms 
                        of firearms trafficking.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 21, 2011

 Mr. Quigley introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To enhance certain prohibitions and penalties relating to certain forms 
                        of firearms trafficking.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Border Security Enhancement Act of 
2011''.

SEC. 2. INCREASE IN MAXIMUM PENALTY FOR CERTAIN INTENTIONALLY FALSE 
              STATEMENTS RELATING TO FIREARMS.

    Section 924(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by striking subparagraph (A) and 
        redesignating subparagraphs (B) through (D) as subparagraphs 
        (A) through (C), respectively; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(8) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, subsection 
(b), (c), (f), or (p) of this section, or in section 929, whoever 
knowingly makes any false statement or representation with respect to 
the information required by this chapter to be kept in the records of a 
person licensed under this chapter or in applying for any license or 
exemption or relief from disability under this chapter shall be fined 
under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.''.

SEC. 3. CERTAIN FIREARMS-RELATED OFFENSES CONSIDERED TO BE SPECIFIED 
              UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY.

    Section 1956(c)(7)(D) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
by inserting after ``section 922(1) (relating to the unlawful 
importation of firearms),'' the following: ``section 924(a)(1)(A) 
(relating to misrepresentations relating to firearms),''.
                                 <all>
```
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 12-2214

___________________________

Katheryne Polter

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security Administration

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis

____________

 Submitted: January 4, 2013

Filed: January 15, 2013

[Unpublished]

____________

Before BYE, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Katheryne Polter appeals the district court’s1

 order affirming the denial of

disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. Upon de novo review,

1

The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Missouri.
see Renstrom v. Astrue, 680 F.3d 1057, 1063-64 (8th Cir. 2012), we find no basis for

reversal. Specifically, we find no merit to Polter’s challenges to the administrative

law judge’s (ALJ’s) determinations as to physical and mental residual functional

capacity (RFC), see Anderson v. Astrue, 696 F.3d 790, 794 (8th Cir. 2012)

(conclusory checkbox form has little evidentiary value when it provides little or no

elaboration and cites no medical evidence); Renstrom, 680 F.3d at 1064 (treating

physician’s opinion does not automatically control); or to the ALJ’s hypothetical to

the vocational expert, see Perkins v. Astrue, 648 F.3d 892, 901-02 (8th Cir. 2011)

(hypothetical must capture concrete consequences of claimant’s deficiencies); cf.

Davis v. Apfel, 239 F.3d 962, 966 (8th Cir. 2001) (rejecting contention that

hypothetical was flawed because it did not specify frequency of need to alternate

between sitting and standing, where hypothetical addressed claimant’s need to sit and

stand “at will”). The district court is affirmed. 

______________________________

-2-
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2677 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2677

 To direct the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to 
 issue regulations to reduce helicopter noise pollution in residential 
    areas of Los Angeles County, California, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 28, 2011

  Mr. Berman introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To direct the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to 
 issue regulations to reduce helicopter noise pollution in residential 
    areas of Los Angeles County, California, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Los Angeles Residential Helicopter 
Noise Relief Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. RESIDENTIAL HELICOPTER NOISE RELIEF.

    (a) Regulations Required.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
Administration shall issue regulations for helicopter operations in Los 
Angeles County, California, that include requirements relating to the 
flight paths and altitudes associated with such operations to reduce 
helicopter noise pollution in residential areas.
    (b) Exemptions Permitted.--In issuing regulations under subsection 
(a), the Administrator may exempt helicopter operations related to 
emergency, law enforcement, or military activities from requirements 
described in such subsection.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 23.1
                                                                    ------------


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
on Form S-8 (File Numbers 333-108216, 33-66826, 333-57249, 333-96903 and
333-103049) and Form S-3 (File Numbers 333-106964, 33-71416, 333-1748,
333-54804, 333-64734, 333-76556 and 333-90654) of Able Laboratories, Inc., of
our report dated February 13, 2004 appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K
of Able Laboratories, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2003.



/s/ Wolf & Company, P.C.
Boston, Massachusetts
March 15, 2004
Exhibit 99.2

                            CERTIFICATION 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 Point.360  (the  "Company") on Form
10-Q for the  period  ended June 30,  2002,  as filed  with the  Securities  and
Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Alan R. Steel, Chief Financial 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 fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section  13(a) of
        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/ Alan R. Steel
-----------------------
Alan R. Steel
Chief Financial Officer
August 13, 2002
EXHIBIT
32.1
  STATEMENT
REQUIRED BY 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 China Education Technology,
Inc. (the "Company") for the three months ended March 31, 2009, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Yan
Bin Guo, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify that:
 
 *   the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
  *   information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
  /s/ Yan Bin
Guo
 Yan Bin
Guo
 President,
Chief Executive Officer,
 
 May 19,
2009
 
  This
certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by us for purposes of Section 18 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

DANIEL O’NEILL, §

§ No. 682, 2015

Plaintiff Below, §

Appellant, §

§ Court Below:

v. §

§ Superior Court of the

CARMAN DODGE, INC., § State of Delaware

§

Defendant Below, § C.A. No. 14A-12-010

Appellee. §

Submitted: May 11, 2016

Decided: May 18, 2016

Before STRINE, Chief Justice; HOLLAND and VALIHURA, Justices.

O R D E R

This 18th day of May 2016, the Court, having considered this matter on the briefs 

of the parties, has concluded that the same should be affirmed on the basis of and for the 

reasons assigned by the Superior Court in its decision of November 16, 2015.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment of the 

Superior Court be, and the same hereby is, AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura

 Justice