alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered June 10, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 12
- 01047
- CR
KENNETH WAYNE RAPER, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 282nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Cou rt Cause No. F10
- 34700
- S



### O RDER In this case, appellant raises an issue related to the costs assessed against him. The record, however, does not contain a cost bill or other document with an itemized list of costs assessed in this case. Accordingly, we ORDER the Dallas County District Clerk to file, within FIFTEEN DAYS of the date of this order, a supplemental clerk’s record containing a detailed itemization of the costs assessed in this case, including but not limited to, specific court costs, fees, an d court appointed attorney fees. We further ORDER that the supplemental clerk’s record include a document explaining any and all abbreviations used to designate a particular fee, cost, or court appointed attorney fee.We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to the

Gary Fitzsimmons, Dallas County District Clerk; Dallas County District Clerk’s Office, Criminal Records Division; and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
RETROSPETTIVA, INC. 10-QSB FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1999, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          37,421
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  7,880,151
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,493,209
<PP&E>                                          68,792
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,622,296
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,063,480
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     6,258,190
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,300,626
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,622,296
<SALES>                                      2,633,181
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,633,181
<CGS>                                        2,244,244
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,784,724
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              52,402
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (159,767)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (84,767)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.03)


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-1802

MICHAEL CRAIG CLARK,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 versus

JONATHAN NIXON; JEFF PROCTOR; STATE OF NORTH

CAROLINA; DONALD HOBBS; KENT CHAPPELL; CLIFF

HOBBS; PAUL COPELAND; WALLY HOBBS; CHAD

MATTHEWS; ALAN CORPREW; SCOTT WAFF,

 Defendants - Appellees,

 and

MARK DAVIS; JOHN V. MATTHEWS; PERQUIMANS

COUNTY,

 Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. Malcolm J. Howard,

District Judge. (CA-02-47-2-H-1)

Submitted: October 22, 2004 Decided: December 9, 2004

Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
- 2 -

Michael Craig Clark, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Carpenter Prentiss,

HORNTHAL, RILEY, ELLIS & MALAND, Elizabeth City, North Carolina,

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Michael Craig Clark appeals the district court’s orders

denying relief on his civil complaint alleging violations of 42

U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated

by the district court. See Clark v. Nixon, No. CA-02-47-2-H-1

(E.D.N.C. Dec. 18, 2002 & June 3, 2004). 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
<PAGE>

Exhibit 11.1

                      DESKTOP DATA, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                     COMPUTATION OF NET EARNINGS PER SHARE
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                       YEAR ENDED
                                                                       DECEMBER 31,

                                                              1996                     1995
                                                              ----                     ----
<S>                                                      <C>                      <C>
Net income                                               $   4,584,798            $ 2,137,064
Accretion of dividends on Series B preferred
  stock                                                              -               (101,250)
Discount on redemption of Series B preferred
  stock                                                              -              1,232,238
                                                         -------------           ------------
Net income (loss) available for common
  stockholders                                           $   4,584,798           $   3,268,052
                                                         =============           =============
Weighted average common shares outstanding                   8,572,200               4,959,013
Weighted average shares to reflect the
  conversion of Series A, Series C, and Series D
  preferred stock as of the beginning of
  the period                                                         -               2,350,452
Common stock equivalents outstanding, pursuant
  to the treasury stock method                                 206,279                 209,064
                                                         --------------            -----------
Weighted average number of common and
   common equivalent shares outstanding
   in 1996 and 1995                                          8,778,479               7,518,529
                                                         -------------             -----------
Net income per common and common equivalent
   share in 1996 and 1995                                $        0.52             $      0.43
                                                         =============             ===========
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<CIK> 0000857571
<NAME> AEP GENERATING COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      345,028
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                          6
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          47,045
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                           817
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                   5,744
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 398,640
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                       29,235
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                              3,673
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                  33,908
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                                 0
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                              24,700
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                   44,800
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                        592
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                   276
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 294,364
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  398,640
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      217,189
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             2,431
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     209,418
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     211,849
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                          5,340
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               3,659
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                   8,999
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         2,804
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,195
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                    6,195
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         5,292
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          19,145
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F1>
<FN>
<F1> All common stock owned by parent company; no EPS required.
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Paul Edward ERWIN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-30825

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 19, 2008.

Earl M. Campbell, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District Of Louisiana, Shreveport, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Carol B. Whitehurst, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Western District Of Louisiana, Lafayette, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before KING, DAVIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Paul Edward Erwin pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography and was sentenced to 180 months of imprisonment, five years of supervised release, and a $15,000 fine, with any portion of the fine that was unpaid at the time of his release from prison to be payable in installments of $250 per month.

Erwin argues for the first time on appeal that the $15,000 fine was unreasonable because he will have difficulty obtaining employment upon his release from *350prison and because his assets are necessities of life that should remain unencumbered for the sake of his spouse.

Erwin did not challenge the fíne in the district court, and thus we review it for plain error. *See United States v. Lander-man,*167 F.3d 895, 899 (5th Cir.1999).

Because the presentence report, which was adopted by the district court, stated that Erwin had a net worth of $70,000 and because Erwin has not shown that he will be unemployable at the time of his release from prison, he has not shown that the encumbrance of his assets to pay the fine will be unduly burdensome on his spouse or that the imposition of the fíne was plainly erroneous. *See United States v. Magnuson,*307 F.3d 333, 335-36 (5th Cir.2002); *United States v. Matovsky,*935 F.2d 719, 723 (5th Cir.1991).

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

# Certificate of Chief
Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 18
U.S.C. Section 1350 dated August 1, 2003

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer CNET
Networks, Inc. (CNET) hereby certifies that:

| | 1. | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of CNET for the quarterly period ended June 30,
               2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2004
               (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
               15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | 2. | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
               respects, the financial condition and results of operations of CNET.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Dated:   August 6, 2004 /S/ Douglas N. Woodrum
Douglas N. WoodrumExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or
otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version
of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to CNET and will be
retained by CNET and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
EXHIBIT 11.1


                 HEALTHCOR HOLDINGS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
              UNAUDITED NET LOSS PER COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARES




Basic and diluted net loss per                    Three Months Ended
  common share                                         March 31,
                                             ---------------------------
                                                 1999            1998
                                             ------------    -----------
Numerator:
  Net loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   $(11,461,802)   $(5,488,093)
Denominator:
  Weighted average common shares
     outstanding-basic . . . . . . . . . .     10,092,680     10,090,057
  Effect of dilutive stock options:
     Assuming exercise of options, reduced
       by the number of common shares
       which could have been purchased
       with the proceeds from exercise of
       such options. . . . . . . . . . . .             --             --
                                            -------------   ------------

  Weighted average number of common shares
     outstanding and dilutive stock
     options - diluted . . . . . . . . . .     10,092,680     10,090,057
                                            =============   ============

Net loss per common share. . . . . . . . .  $       (1.14)  $      (0.54)
Net loss per common share- assuming
  dilution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  $       (1.14)  $      (0.54)
#### Lewis J. HINCHLIFFE, a minor, by his parents and natural guardians, Louis B. Hinchliffe and Ellen Hinchliffe, and Louis B. Hinchliffe and Ellen Hinchliffe, in their own right, v. Robert Paul CARR and Newlin Carr, Jr.

Civ. A. No. 23064.

United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania.

June 12, 1958.

*188Kenneth Syken, Richter, Lord & Levy, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiffs.

Albert C. Gekoski, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.

EGAN, District Judge.

Plaintiffs, suing in their capacity as guardians as well as in their own right, have initiated the instant suit to recover damages as a result of an automobile collision in which the minor plaintiff was injured. The defendant has filed a motion to dismiss under Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. Rule 12(b), 28 U.S.C.A., for want of the jurisdictional amount.

The defendant has admitted, for the purposes of this motion, that the minor plaintiff has sustained medical expenses in the amount' of $78 and that the property damage to the adult plaintiffs’ automobile amounts to $1,300, or a total of $1,378. It has also been asserted that the minor plaintiff is still incurring medical expenses which will augment the above figure. Furthermore, it has been alleged that the minor plaintiff has incurred a loss of wages in the amount of $116.07. Viewing these allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, including any pain and suffering that a jury might find, the facts of this case do not lend themselves to a motion to dismiss.

In the recent case of Sicilia v. Tassell, D.C.E.D.Pa., 163 F.Supp. 371, former Chief Judge Kirkpatrick denied a motion to dismiss where the total medical expenses amounted to only $4 on the theory that a jury, under the facts of *that*case, could conceivably return a verdict in excess of the jurisdictional amount. He distinguished Bell v. Mykytiuk, D.C.E.D. Pa.1955, 135 F.Supp. 167, a case relied upon by the, defendant here, on the grounds that in the Bell case, the only injury complained of was a bruised right arm, which condition disappeared withing two weeks, while in Sicilia the condition complained of allegedly remained for a period of six months. In the case before the Court, it has been alleged that the minor plaintiff has been the victim of low back pain, as well as occipital headaches, all of which resulted from the accident. To dismiss the complaint at this time under such allegations would be an invasion of the province of a jury to determine the value of the plaintiffs’ claims.

For the reasons stated, the motion of the defendant to dismiss is denied.
##### 



Exhibit 10.9
 GTECH HOLDINGS CORPORATION
 SCHEDULE OF RECIPIENTS OF EXECUTIVE
SEPARATION AGREEMENTS (1)
 Recipient
    
    Payout Period (2)W. Bruce Turner
    
    (3)Barbara Burns
    
    12 months (4)David Calabro
    
    12 months (5)Marc Crisafulli
    
    12 monthsWalter G. DeSocio
    
    12 monthsJoseph Nadan
    
    12 months (6)Timothy Nyman
    
    12 monthsJaymin Patel
    
    12 monthsWilliam M. Pieri
    
    12 monthsRobert J. Plourde
    
    12 monthsDonald Sweitzer
    
    12 months
 (1)
    
    Sets forth individuals who are, or who were during fiscal 2006, executive officers of GTECH
Holdings Corporation (Holdings) and who are parties to separation agreements.(2)
    
    Unless otherwise indicated, executive is to receive continuation of his or her base salary at
time of separation, plus certain health, insurance and other benefits for the respective
number of months indicated.(3)
    
    See Amended and Restated Employment Agreement, dated as of August 2, 2005, between W. Bruce
Turner and Holdings.(4)
    
    Employment terminated effective April 22, 2005.(5)
    
    Employment terminated effective May 15, 2005.(6)
    
    Employment terminated effective March 27, 2006.
<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 Annual Report of Winton Financial Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Robert L. Bollin, 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, 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 result of operations of the
Company.

                                          /s/ Robert L. Bollin
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Robert L. Bollin
                                          President (Chief Executive Officer)

December 17, 2004
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2910 

To require parental consent to release records of home-schooled students. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 14, 2011 

Mr. HULTGREN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To require parental consent to release records of homeschooled students. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Family Educational 

5 Records Privacy Extension Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REQUIRING PARENTAL CONSENT TO RELEASE 

7 RECORDS OF HOME-SCHOOLED STUDENTS. 

8 Subsection (a) of section 444 of the General Edu9 cation Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g) is amended— 

10 (1) in paragraph (5)(B), by striking ‘‘attending 

11 the institution or agency’’ and inserting ‘‘for whom 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2910 IH

1 the agency or institution maintains education 

2 records, including home-schooled students,’’; and 

3 (2) in paragraph (6), by striking ‘‘but does not 

4 include a person who has not been in attendance at 

5 such agency or institution’’ and inserting ‘‘including 

6 home-schooled students’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
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 quarterly period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Timothy L. Krist, Chief Financial Officer 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 my knowledge, that:





(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ Timothy L. Krist


Timothy L. Krist


Chief Financial Officer


May 14, 2010





This Certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed “filed” by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, whether made before or after the date of this Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 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.