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-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          67,696
<SECURITIES>                                    76,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                   83,183
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               269,304
<PP&E>                                         128,425
<DEPRECIATION>                                  68,814
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 455,528
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          100,541
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                     350,008
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   455,528
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               311,012
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  212,428
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 53,839
<INCOME-TAX>                                    20,831
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             33,008
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    33,008
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.65
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.65


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 99.1

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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (the "Report") of PYR
Energy Corporation (the "Company") for the fiscal quarter ended November 30,
2002, each of the undersigned D. Scott Singdahlsen, the Chief Executive Officer
of the Company, and Andrew P. Calerich, the Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of
the undersigned's knowledge and belief: (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.


Dated: January 14, 2003




/s/ D. Scott Singdahlsen
------------------------
D. Scott Singdahlsen, Chief Executive Officer




/s/ Andrew P. Calerich
----------------------
Andrew P. Calerich, Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 21.1
SUBSIDIARIES
 PercentageSubsidiary
    
    Incorporated In
    
    OwnedMedicis, The Dermatology Company
    
    Delaware
    
    
    100
    %Dermavest, Inc.
    
    Nevada
    
    
    100
    %Medicis Global Services Corporation
    
    Delaware
    
    
    100
    %Medicis Canada Ltd.
    
    Canada
    
    
    100
    %Ucyclyd Pharma, Inc.
    
    Maryland
    
    
    100
    %Medicis Pediatrics, Inc.
    
    Delaware
    
    
    100
    %Medicis Aesthetics Inc.
    
    Delaware
    
    
    100
    %Dermavest Swedish Holdings AB
    
    Sweden
    
    
    100
    %HA North American Sales AB
    
    Sweden
    
    
    100
    %Medicis Aesthetics Canada Ltd.
    
    Canada
    
    
    100
    %9 TV LLC
    
    Delaware
    
    
    100
    %RTI Acquisition Corporation, Inc.
    
    Delaware
    
    
    100
    %LipoSonix, Inc.
    
    Delaware
    
    
    100
    %
#### YA ZHOU MA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-72320.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.*

Filed March 7, 2011.

Nancy Ellen Miller, Esquire, Law Offices of Reeves & Associates, Pasadena, CA, for Petitioner.

Jesse Matthew Bless, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, District Counsel, *681Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Ya Zhou Ma, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, and review its legal conclusions de novo. *Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey,*542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir.2008). We deny the petition for review.

The record does not compel the conclusion that Ma experienced harm that rose to the level of persecution. *See Gu v. Gonzales,*454 F.3d 1014, 1019-21 (9th Cir. 2006) (brief detention, beating and interrogation did not compel a finding of past persecution by Chinese police on account of unsanctioned religious practice); *Al-Saher v. INS,*268 F.3d 1143, 1146 (detention of five to six days where respondent was not beaten does not amount to persecution). The record also does not compel the conclusion that Ma was or would be targeted on account of his political opinion or religion. *See INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 483-84, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (9th Cir.1992) (although direct proof of a persecutor’s motives is not necessary, an applicant must provide some evidence that she was or would be persecuted because of a protected ground). Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of the asylum claim because Ma failed to establish he was or would be persecuted on account of a protected ground. *Id.*at 481 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812 (to reverse the agency’s finding “we must find that the evidence not only *supports*that conclusion, but *compels*it”) (emphasis in original).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED INCOME STATEMENT FOR THE PERIOD
ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       2,154,229
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,069,975
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (300,961)
<INVENTORY>                                     39,244
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,162,239
<PP&E>                                      62,364,698
<DEPRECIATION>                              22,256,863
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              51,660,555
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,945,283
<BONDS>                                     11,194,407
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,506,512
<OTHER-SE>                                  14,835,479
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                51,660,555
<SALES>                                     25,199,410
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            26,818,178
<CGS>                                       14,264,829
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               21,310,455
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                98,713
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             758,896
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,406,149
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,384,968
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,001,181
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,021,181
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.34


</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: John Matt Rembert v. Alnoor Malick and Shelina Malick

Appellate case number: 01-12-01086-CV

Trial court case number: 2009-03407

Trial court: 189th District Court of Harris County

Appellant, John Matt Rembert, proceeding pro se, has filed a motion to dismiss the 

appeal and expedite the mandate. However, the motion does not include a certificate of service, 

indicating that the motion was served on the parties to the appeal or their counsel. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 9.5(a) (requiring service of all documents), 9.5(d) (requiring all documents to include 

proof of service in form of acknowledgement of service by person served or certificate of 

service), 9.5(e) (requiring certificate of service to state date and manner of service; name and 

address of each person served; and, if person served is party’s attorney, name of party 

represented by attorney). Further, the motion does not include a certificate of conference, 

indicating that Rembert conferred or attempted to confer with the other parties to the appeal 

about the merits of the motion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.1(a)(5) (requiring motion to include 

certificate of conference). Accordingly, we dismiss Rembert’s motion to dismiss the appeal and 

expedite the mandate.

Nevertheless, the Court will consider any future motion filed in compliance with the 

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Russell Lloyd

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: June 9, 2015
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 on Form 10-K of WNC Housing Tax Credit
Fund II,  L.P.  (the  "Partnership")  for the year ended March 31, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
and pursuant to 18 U.S.C.,  section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, I, Wilfred N. Cooper,  Jr., President and Chief
Executive Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc., general partner of the Partnership,
hereby certify 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 Partnership.




/s/WILFRED N. COOPER, JR.
-------------------------
Wilfred N. Cooper, Jr.
President and Chief Executive Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.
Date:  July 30, 2009
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1

                                   SECTION 302

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Jon L. Gorney, certify that:

    1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of National
Processing, Inc.;

    2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement
of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

    3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

    4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

        a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
    disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
    ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
    consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
    entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
    prepared;

        b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
    and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
    effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of
    the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

        c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
    control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
    recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely
    to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial
    reporting; and

    5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

        a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
    operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
    likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
    summarize and report financial information; and

        b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
    employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
    over financial reporting.

Date: November 7, 2003            By: /s/ JON L. GORNEY
                                  ---------------------------------
                                  Jon L. Gorney
                                  Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit 11**                           **Computations of Earnings Per Common        Share**  **Three Months Ended** **Three Months Ended**  **March        31, 2003** **March        31, 2004**  **Net**     **Per Share** **Net**     **Per Share**  **Loss** **Shares** **Amount** **Loss** **Shares** **Amount**  **(in thousands, except per share        data)**Basic EPS                        Net loss available          to common shareholders $(2,162)  20,958  $(0.10) $(1,554)  24,275  $(0.06)                            Effect of Dilutive Securities                        Stock option plans      —           —                                 Dilutive EPS                        Net loss available          to common shareholders and assumed conversions $(2,162)  20,958  $(0.10) $(1,554)  24,275  $(0.06)                         
     NOTE: Options to purchase 4.3 million and 4.2 million shares of Class A CommonStock were outstanding during the three months ended March 31, 2003 and 2004,respectively, but were not included in the computation of diluted earnings pershare because the effect would have been anti-dilutive.
EXHIBIT 99.2



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 Digital Lightwave, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mark E. Scott, 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, that to the best of my knowledge:



(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.





By:/s/ MARK E. SCOTT

Mark E. Scott

Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Accounting Officer)



Date: November 14, 2002
#### Mark Carmelengo et al., Appellants, v Phoenix Houses of New York, Inc., Respondent, et al., Defendant.

[865 NYS2d 43]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Janice L. Bowman, J.), entered January 17, 2007, which granted defendant-respondent’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs contend that while they were resident inmates in the Marcy Program, a Comprehensive Alcohol and Substance Abuse Treatment Program (CASAT) *(see*7 NYCRR 1950.1 *et seq.)*operated by Phoenix House and administered by the New York State Department of Correctional Services, defendants discriminated against them on the basis of their religion in violation of section 8-107 (4) of the Administrative Code of the City of New York, by denying their requests, as practicing Muslims, to attend Friday religious services at a local mosque, while residents of other religious faiths were permitted to attend services.

The preliminary issue is whether Phoenix House is a “place or provider of public accommodation” as defined in section 8-102 (9) of the Administrative Code and thus subject to section 8-107 (4). While the question of whether a facility is such a place or provider is ordinarily an issue of fact that cannot be determined on a motion to dismiss *(see generally Matter of United States Power Squadrons v State Human Rights Appeal Bd.,*59 NY2d 401, 412 [1983]), and while the procedural posture of this case affords the plaintiffs every favorable inference, there is no question as to the exact nature of this particular program, because it is fully set out in 7 NYCRR 1950.1 *et seq.*The absence of an affidavit by Phoenix House describing its operations is therefore immaterial; nor is there any need for discovery before it can be determined exactly how Phoenix House operates.

*653While it is true that certain types of places not usually open to the general public have on occasion been held to constitute public accommodations under the State Human Rights Law, these places do provide services to the general public *(see Ness v Pan Am. World Airways,*142 AD2d 233, 239-240 [1988]). An entity should not be viewed as a place of public accommodation when it offers a particular program to a select subset of a small segment of the public. Not only are members of the general public barred from even being considered as potential participants in defendants’ program, but there is a highly selective process by which a small subset of the prison inmate population may qualify for the drug rehabilitation services of the CASAT program, as well as other strict limitations placed on participation. The motion court was therefore correct to conclude, as a matter of law, that the Phoenix House program at issue does not qualify as a place or provider of public accommodation. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Sweeny, McGuire, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

by the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

In connection with the Annual Report of ITEX Corporation, a Nevada corporation (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), Steven White, Chief Executive Officer and Interim Chief Financial Officer, of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to his knowledge:

|(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.

| | CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER          
| | ---------------------------------
| |                                  
| |                                  
| | /s/ Steven White                 
| |                                  
| | Steven White                     
| | October 31, 2005                 
| |                                  
| |                                  
| | INTERIM CHIEF FINANCIAL   OFFICER
| |                                  
| |                                  
| | /s/ Steven White                 
| |                                  
| | Steven White                     
| | October 31,   2005               

---
Exhibit








THIRD AMENDMENT
TO
Camden National Corporation
2012 Equity and Incentive Plan
		
	A.
	The Camden National Corporation 2012 Equity and Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), is hereby amended as follows:


1.Section 16(d) of the Plan is hereby amended by deleting such section in its entirety and substituting the following in lieu thereof:
“(1) If the grantee’s Service terminates due to Retirement, and on the date of Retirement the grantee is at least sixty-five (65) years old and has been employed by the Company or a Subsidiary for at least five (5) consecutive years, then any Award held by the grantee shall become fully vested and exercisable, and any Stock Option held by the grantee may be exercised by the grantee for a period of twelve (12) months from the date of Retirement or until the last day of the original term of the Stock Option, if earlier.
(2) If the grantee’s Service terminates due to Retirement, and on the date of Retirement the grantee is not at least sixty-five (65) years old and/or has not been employed by the Company or a Subsidiary for at least five (5) consecutive years, then any Award held by the grantee shall be vested or exercisable only to the extent vested or exercisable on the date of Retirement. Any shares of Restricted Stock held by the grantee that are not vested on the date of Retirement shall be subject to an optional repurchase right of the Company at the original purchase price. Any vested Stock Option held by the grantee shall be exercisable by the grantee for a period of twelve (12) months from the date of Retirement or until the last day of the original term of the Stock Option, if earlier.”
		
	B.
	Except as otherwise so amended, the Plan is confirmed in all other respects.


C.The effective date of this Amendment is as of April 24, 2018.