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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                             971                     715
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,314                   5,590
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,824)                   (463)
<INVENTORY>                                      4,328                   4,058
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                13,427                  10,040
<PP&E>                                           6,789                   4,170
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (3,362)                 (1,939)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  24,336                  17,634
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,839                   5,467
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                        686                   1,494
<COMMON>                                        38,350                  34,468
<OTHER-SE>                                    (24,219)                (25,257)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    24,336                  17,634
<SALES>                                         17,006                  17,678
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                23,592                  17,742
<CGS>                                           10,219                   8,450
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,519                  17,344
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 684                     334
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0                       0
<INCOME-TAX>                                        69                      80
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,101                     365
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,101                     365
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .08                     .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-6542

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

JULIUS CHRISTOPHER CLAYTOR, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior 

District Judge. (7:05-cr-00007-jct-mfu-1; 7:08-cv-80051-jct-mfu) 

Submitted: June 18, 2009 Decided: June 25, 2009 

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Julius Christopher Claytor, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray 

Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Julius Christopher Claytor seeks to appeal the 

district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 

(West Supp. 2009) motion, as well as its order denying his Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration. The order is not 

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this 

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find 

that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district 

court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural 

ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. 

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. 

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 

683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the 

record and conclude that Claytor 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 the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

GARRY WADE CROSSLEY,

Appellant,

v.

KAREN KAY CROSSLEY,

Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-23-00104-CV

Appeal from the

150th Judicial District Court

of Bexar County, Texas

(TC# 2021-CI-04601)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was error in the 

judgment. We sustain Gary’s first issue in part, as described in our opinion. We sustain Gary’s 

third issue in part by reversing the attorneys fees as awarded in the judgment below, but remand 

for what might be equitable and just considering our ruling. We remand the case for further 

proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 14TH DAY OF MAY, 2024.

JEFF ALLEY, Chief Justice

Before Alley, C.J., Palafox and Soto, JJ.
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-21-00319-CV

SAIED EMAMI, Appellant

V.

KATHY JO EMAMI, Appellee

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 233rd District 

Court

of Tarrant County (233-686313-20)

August 11, 2022

Memorandum Opinion by Justice 

Birdwell

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed. 

It is further ordered that Saied Emami shall pay all costs of this appeal, for 

which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Wade Birdwell

 Justice Wade Birdwell
Exhibit 10.36  FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE WESTERN GAS RESOURCES, INC. 2002 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN  This First Amendment to the
Western Gas Resources, Inc. 2002 Stock Incentive Plan is made this 30th
day of June, 2002, effective June 30, 2002.  RECITALS  A.The Board of Directors adopted the Western
Gas Resources, Inc. 2002 Stock Incentive Plan (the Plan).  B.Section 4(d) of the Plan authorizes the Board
of Directors to amend the Plan.  C.The Board of Directors desires to amend the
Plan to make the modifications set forth herein.  NOW, THEREFORE, the Western Gas Resources, Inc. 2002 Stock Incentive Plan is amended
as follows:  1.Section 7(c)(v) is hereby deleted in its
entirety and replaced with the following:  (v)Options may be exercised, in whole or in part,
by the surrender (or delivery) to the Corporation of previously acquired shares
of Corporation common stock held for greater than six months.  This method of exercise is to include the
constructive exchange (or surrendering) of Corporation stock already owned and
held for greater than six months (Payment Shares) in payment for the shares
to be received under the Option exercise in lieu of actually tendering such
Corporation stock to the Corporation. If the Payment Shares are held by a
registered securities broker for the Participant in street name, the
Participant will provide the Corporation with a notarized statement attesting
to the number of shares owned that are intended to serve as Payment Shares. If
the Corporation stock certificates are actually held by the Participant, he
shall provide the Corporation with their certificate numbers. Upon receipt of a
notarized statement regarding ownership of the Payment Shares, or upon
confirmation of ownership of the Payment Shares by reference to Corporation
records, the Corporation shall treat the Payment Shares as being constructively
exchanged. The Corporation shall then issue to the employee a certificate for a
net number of shares: the number of shares subject to the Option exercise less
the number of Payment Shares. The exchange price for the Payment Shares under
the respective Option exercise will be the Fair Market Value of the Corporation
common stock as determined in 2.i. above as of the effective date of the
exchange.  
   2.Except
as hereby amended, the Plan is hereby ratified and confirmed by the Board of
Directors and its provisions shall remain in full force and effect.  ADOPTED by the
Board of Directors of Western Gas Resources, Inc. effective as of the date
first set forth above.  WESTERN GAS
  RESOURCES, INC.By
  /s/
  John C. WalterTitle
  Executive Vice President


---
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 of Torrent Energy Corporation of our report dated July 13, 2006, on our audit of the consolidated balance sheet of Torrent Energy Corporation (an exploration stage company) and Subsidiaries as of March 31, 2006, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity (deficit), and cash flows for the year ended March 31, 2006.

 

Our report, dated June 28, 2006, contains an explanatory paragraph that states that Torrent Energy Corporation has not generated revenues or positive cash flows from operations since inception and has an accumulated deficit at March 31, 2006.  These conditions raise substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern.  The consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.

 

/s/ Peterson Sullivan PLLC

 

July 13, 2006

Seattle, Washington
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005 of Closure Medical Corporation (the Company) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Daniel A. Pelak, President and Chief Executive 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, that, to my knowledge:



(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. (s) 78m(a) or (s) 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.



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ DANIEL A. PELAK                  
|Daniel A. Pelak                      
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|May 10, 2005
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-8163

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DAVID COREY JOHNSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:01-cr-00117-REP-1)

Submitted: March 17, 2009 Decided: March 20, 2009

Before TRAXLER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert J. Wagner, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. James Brien Comey, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, John Staige Davis, V, Brian Ronald Hood, Assistant United States Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

David Corey Johnson appeals the district court’s order

denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006) motion. We have reviewed

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm

for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v.

Johnson , No. 3:01-cr-00117-REP-1 (E.D. Va. Sept. 22, 2008)

. We

deny Johnson’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<CIK> 0000857571
<NAME> AEP GENERATING COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      358,605
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                          6
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          38,601
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                           696
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                   5,984
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 403,892
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                       35,235
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                              2,770
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                  39,005
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                            44,792
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                              24,450
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                        0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                        896
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                   364
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 294,385
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  403,892
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      224,146
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             2,988
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     212,427
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     215,415
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                          8,731
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               3,364
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  12,095
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         3,149
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,946
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                    8,946
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         8,704
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          29,319
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F1>
<FN>
<F1> All common stock owned by parent company; no EPS required.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 60604 Su m m ar y Cal endar ABDULAL I NURAM OH A M AKNOJ IA , P et i t i on er v. ERI C H . H OLD ER, J R. , U. S. ATTORN EY GE N ERA L , Res po nde nt Pet i t i o n f

o rRev i e w o f

a n Ord e ro f

t he B o a r do f Im m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls B IAN o. A 078 987 637 B ef ore H IG G IN B O T H A M , C L E M E N T , an d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * Ab d u la li N u r a m o h a M a k n ojia , a n a tiv e a n d c itiz e n o f In d ia , p e tit io n s th is c o u r tt o r e v i e w t he dec i s i o n o f t h e Bo a r do f

I m m i g r a t i o n Ap p e a l s ( BIA) u ph ol di ng t he de c i s i o n o f t he i m m i gr at i o n j udg e de nyi ng hi s a ppli c at i o n f or w i t hho l di ng o f

re m o va l . M ak noj i a ar gue s t hatgive n hi s c r e dibl e t e s t i m o ny and t he do c um e nt ar y e vi de nc e de pi c t i ng t he pe r s e c ut i o n o f M us l i m s b y H i ndu e x tr e m is ts , are a s o n a b le p e r s o n in h is cir c u m s ta n c e w o u ldfe a rp e r s e c u tio n if r et urned t o I ndi a. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D May 17, 2010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 09-60604 Document: 00511112808 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/17/2010N o. 09- 60604

2 W e co n c lu d e fr o m are v ie w o f th e re c o r dth a t t h e B IA ’ s d e te r m in a tio n is sup ported by s u bstanti alevi den ce, an d the recor d d oes not com pela concl u si on c o n tr a r yto th e B IA ’ s d e n ia l o f w ith h o ld in go f r e m o v a l. S eeE d u a rdv. A sh cr oft , 3 7 9 F .3 d1 8 2 , 1 9 3 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ); Ch u n v . I NS , 4 0 F .3d 7 6 , 7 8 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 4 ); 8 C . F . R. § 2 0 8 . 1 6 (b ) . A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w i s DE NI ED . Case: 09-60604 Document: 00511112808 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/17/2010
EXHIBIT 3.5

                REPLACEMENT OF SECTIONS 4.02, 4.06, 4.07 AND 5.01
                   OF BY-LAW NO. 1A OF OPTIMAL ROBOTICS CORP.


Sections 4.02, 4.06, 4.07 and 5.01 of By-Law No. 1A of Optimal Robotics Corp.
are replaced by the following, respectively:

Section 4.02 QUALIFICATION. No person shall be qualified for election as a
director if he is less than eighteen (18) years of age; if he is of unsound mind
and has been so found by a court in Canada or elsewhere; if he is not an
individual; or if he has the status of a bankrupt. A director need not be a
shareholder. Twenty-five percent (25%) of the directors shall be resident
Canadians unless the Act permits otherwise.

Section 4.06 ACTION BY THE BOARD. The board shall manage, or supervise the
management of, the business and affairs of the Corporation. Subject to sections
4.08 and 4.09, the powers of the board may be exercised by resolution passed at
a meeting at which a quorum is present or by resolution in writing signed by all
the directors entitled to vote on that resolution at a meeting of the board.
Where there is a vacancy in the board, the remaining directors may exercise all
the authorities, powers and discretions of the board so long as a quorum remains
in office.

Section 4.07 CANADIAN MAJORITY. The board shall not transact business at a
meeting, other than filling a vacancy in the board arising otherwise than by an
increase in the number or minimum number of directors or from a failure to elect
the number or minimum number of directors required by the articles, unless
twenty-five percent of the directors present are resident Canadians, except
where

      (a)   a resident Canadian director who is unable to be present approves in
            writing or by telephone or other communication facilities the
            business transacted at the meeting; and

      (b)   twenty-five percent of resident Canadians would have been present
            had that director been present at the meeting.

Section 5.01 COMMITTEE OF DIRECTORS. The board may appoint a committee or
committee of directors, however designated, and delegate to such committee or
committees any of the powers of the board except those which, under the Act, a
committee of directors has no authority to exercise.


ENACTED ON MAY 2, 2002.

CONFIRMED ON JUNE 20, 2002.


                                      -28-
1

The Honorable Michael J. Davis, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-4169

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Daniel Tovar-Arguello, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 4, 2007

Filed: October 9, 2007

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Daniel Tovar-Arguello, a citizen of Mexico, pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the United States after having been deported following his conviction for an

aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) and 6 U.S.C. §§ 202(3),

(4), and 557. His advisory Guidelines imprisonment range was 30-37 months, and he

was sentenced to 30 months in prison by the district court.1

 On appeal, TovarArguello argues that his sentence is unreasonable because the district court (1)

undervalued the mitigating facts and unique circumstances of his case, such as his
-2-

benign reasons for illegal re-entry, and (2) overvalued the deterrent effect of a prison

sentence. His argument relies on the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and the

“parsimony” doctrine, which provides that the sentence imposed should be the least

severe sanction necessary to achieve the purpose of sentencing.

Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its

discretion in sentencing Tovar-Arguello at the bottom of the advisory Guidelines

range. See Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462 (2007) (presumption of

reasonableness applies to sentence imposed within advisory Guidelines range); United

States v. Garlewicz, 493 F.3d 933, 938 (8th Cir. 2007) (same); United States v. Long

Soldier, 431 F.3d 1120, 1123 (8th Cir. 2005) (reasonableness of sentence is reviewed

for abuse of discretion, which occurs if court fails to consider relevant factor that

should have received significant weight, gives significant weight to improper or

irrelevant factor, or considers only appropriate factors but commits clear error of

judgment); cf. United States v. Turbides-Leonardo, 468 F.3d 34, 41 (1st Cir. 2006)

(“It will be the rare case in which a within-the-range sentence can be found to

transgress the parsimony principle.”), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 3064 (2007); United

States v. Dyck, 334 F.3d 736, 742 (8th Cir. 2003) (“harm sought to be prevented is

illegal reentry itself, for whatever purpose”).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

______________________________
# I3&-/5 ELECTRONIC RECORD COA# 10-14-00204-CR Ronald Gene Grizzle, Jr. 

### STYLE: Texas TRIAL COURT: 249th D TRIAL COURT#: F48507 v. The State of listrict Court 

### Wayne Bridewell 

## OFFENSE: Aggravated Sexual Assault COUNTY: Johnson MOTION FOR REHEARING IS: TRIAL COURTJUDGE: Hon. D.' DATE: DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED JUDGE: 

### DATE: January 15, 2015 JUSTICE: Scoggins PC S YES PUBLISH: DNP: YES 

### CLK RECORD: 7/10/2014 SUPPCLKRECORD: 

### RPT RECORD: 8/29/2014 SUPPRPTRECORD: 

### STATE BR: 12/1/2014 SUPP BR: 

### APP BR: 10/28/2014 PROSE BR:



### IN THE COURTOF CRIMINALAPPEALS 

# ELECTRONICRECORD CCA# | 3fc *f5 PRO S£ Petition FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS: 

### DATE: _ JUDGE:


### CCAIS:. JUDGE: 

# f^L uCiAo4»i— MOTION FOR REHEARING IN 

### ON 

### Disposition: DATE: JUDGE: 

### SIGNED:. PUBLISH: PC: DNP: MOTION FOR STAY OF MANDATE IS: 

### ON JUDGE:
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Anthony Craig Rouswell

, * From the 50 th District Court

of Baylor County,

Trial Court No. 5642

.

Vs. No. 11

- 2 4

- 00 0 44

- CR * July 25 , 2024

The State of Texas

, * Memorand um Opinion by Williams, J.

(P anel consists of: Bailey , C.J.,

Trotter , J. , and W illiams, J. )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no

error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opi nion,

the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.