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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           3,362
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  101,252<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    144,063
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               256,195
<PP&E>                                         260,957<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 646,277
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          150,654
<BONDS>                                        334,888
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                      95,160
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   646,277
<SALES>                                        809,734
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               809,734
<CGS>                                          691,200
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   74,336
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (10,828)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              42,056
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,970
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,523
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,447
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (22,563)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (16,116)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Amounts presented are net
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 23.1
------------

Consent of Independent Accountants

     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statements of Innkeepers USA Trust on Form S-3 (File No. 33-97932, 333-20309,
333-31923, 333-37505, 333-53919, 333-53955, 333-58811, 333-70873, 333-93465,
333-43074 and 333-43076), of our reports (i) dated February 22, 2002, except for
Note 12, as to which the date is March 1, 2002 relating to the consolidated
financial statements of Innkeepers USA Trust; (ii) dated February 22, 2002
relating to the financial statement schedule of Innkeepers USA Trust; and (iii)
dated February 22, 2002 relating to the combined financial statements of
Innkeepers Hospitality, which appear in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We also
consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Selected Financial
Data."

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Dallas, Texas
March 25, 2002
Exhibit 10(h)

                               The Rival Company
                    Management Incentive Compensation Plan


   Each year, under the Management Incentive Bonus Plan, the Committee
establishes a goal relating to the Company's operating income that sets the
minimum and maximum bonus pools that may be earned. No bonus is paid to the
Chief Executive Officer, the President, or the Senior Vice Presidents if a
minimum level of budgeted operating income is not achieved. The incentive pool
is established as a percentage of operating income earned by the Company over
the threshold. A majority of the incentive pool generated by reaching the
target is distributed in cash ratably to designated executive officers and
managers at year-end based on a weighing of positions and base salaries. The
remaining portion of the incentive pool is distributed to outstanding
performers within the eligible group based on the recommendation of the CEO to
the Committee. The targeted and maximum bonuses payable to executive officers
represent a significant portion of an executive's total compensation (25-30%
of the total compensation derived from a combination of base salary, bonus and
stock options).
Exhibit 32.1**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**     In connection with theQuarterly Report of Wilsons The Leather Experts Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended October 28, 2006, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael M. Searles, Chairman and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, adopted pursuant to Section906 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 SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and     2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.       /s/ MICHAEL M. SEARLES Michael M. Searles,
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-13-00045-CR

Adan Martinez

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 371st District Court

of Tarrant County (1219208D)

March 14, 2013

Per Curiam

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

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

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for 

want of jurisdiction.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
2

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-13-00045-CR

ADAN MARTINEZ APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 371ST DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

Adan Martinez attempts to appeal from his conviction and fifteen-year 

sentence for aggravated kidnapping.

The trial court sentenced appellant on October 17, 2011. Because 

appellant did not file a motion for new trial, his notice of appeal was due 

November 16, 2011. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1). Appellant did not file a 

notice of appeal until February 1, 2013 (which he mailed on January 28, 2013). 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
3

We have received no response to our February 5, 2013 inquiry regarding 

jurisdiction.

Because appellant did not timely invoke the jurisdiction of this court,2 we

dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f); Olivo v. 

State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522–23 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and GARDNER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: March 14, 2013

 

2Even if appellant’s notice of appeal had been timely, the trial court’s 

certification of his right to appeal correctly states that this “is a plea-bargain case, 

and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d).
Exhibit
31.1





MANAGING
GENERAL PARTNER CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT
TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








I,
Edward B. Lipkin, certify that:





1.
I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of National Property Analysts
Master Limited Partnership;





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(s) 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 (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
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(s) 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:
March 29,
2010





By:    EBL&S, Inc., its
managing general partner





By:    /s/ Edward B
Lipkin


Name:
Edward B. Lipkin


Title:   President
Exhibit 23.1



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of Alabama National BanCorporation listed below of our
report dated February 18, 2004, except for Note 22 as to which the date is February 27, 2004, relating to the financial statements of Alabama National BanCorporation, which appears in this Form 10-K.



Registration Statements on Form S-8:



|           |  |            |  |           
|---------- |  | ---------- |  | ----------
|333-07951  |  | 333-27285  |  | 333-47748 
|333-59364  |  | 333-70205  |  | 333-70207 
|333-70209  |  | 333-76032  |  | 333-76301 
|333-76303  |  | 333-76305  |  | 333-76307 
|333-76309  |  | 333-76311  |  | 333-76313 
|333-76315  |  | 333-76317  |  | 333-102234
|333-106314 |  | 333-106315 |  | 333-111318
|333-111319 |  | 333-113248 |  | 333-113249
|333-111323 |  | 333-111324 |  |           



/s/
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

---



PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Birmingham, Alabama

March 11, 2004
Exhibit 32.1


CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Retrospettiva, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, (the "Report"), I, Borivoje Vukadinovic, the Company’s Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer, 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; as amended; and





(2)           The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of the Company.








Date:  August 14, 2013








/s/ Borivoje Vukadinovic


Borivoje Vukadinovic,


Principal Executive Officer








/s/ Borivoje Vukadinovic


Borivoje Vukadinovic,


Principal Financial Officer
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2720 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the election 

to treat the cost of qualified film and television productions as an 

expense which is not chargeable to capital account. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 4, 2009 

Mr. CROWLEY (for himself and Mr. DREIER) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make 

permanent the election to treat the cost of qualified 

film and television productions as an expense which is 

not chargeable to capital account. 

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


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2720 IH

1 SECTION 1. EXPENSING OF QUALIFIED FILM AND TELE2 VISION PRODUCTION COSTS MADE PERMA3 NENT. 

4 Section 181 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 

5 (relating to treatment of certain qualified film and tele6 vision productions) is amended by striking subsection (f). 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
GREGORY JAMES MILLER,

Appellant,

v.

CITY OF TRENTON,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-5136

_____________________________/

Opinion filed October 6, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Gilchrist County.

Mary Day Coker, Judge.

Gregory James Miller, pro se, Appellant.

Meagan L. Logan and Heath L. Vickers of Marks Gray, P.A., Jacksonville, for 

Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, C.J., THOMAS and RAY, JJ., CONCUR.
Exhibit 32.1

**CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT**

As adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the third quarter ended March 31, 2009 of Integrated BioPharma, Inc. (the “Company”) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), E. Gerald Kay, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Integrated BioPharma, Inc.certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and |
|--|-----------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.                  A signed original of this written statement 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.                            Dated:     May 20, 2009                                                                                   By: /s/ E. Gerald Kay                                                       E. Gerald Kay                                                               President and Chief Executive        Officer
Exhibit 32

                           CERTIFICATIONS 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 Scarab Systems, Inc. on Form 10-KSB for
the year ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, Thomas E. Mills, Chief Executive
Officer, Chief Financial Officer and 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, 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.

Date: April 28, 2004

By /s/ Thomas E. Mills
Thomas E. Mills
Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and President
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

RODERICK EARL VANGA, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-30156 

D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00246-RSL 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Robert S. Lasnik, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 10, 2018**

Before: CANBY, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Roderick Earl Vanga appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying 

his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo whether a district court 

has authority to resentence a defendant under section 3582(c)(2), see United States 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUL 12 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-30156 

v. Leniear, 574 F.3d 668, 672 (9th Cir. 2009), and we affirm.

Vanga contends that the district court erred by denying his motion for a 

sentence reduction and by failing to address his requests for appointment of 

counsel. The district court correctly concluded that Vanga is ineligible for a 

sentence reduction because his sentence is already below the minimum of the 

amended Guidelines range. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) (“[T]he court shall 

not reduce the defendant’s term of imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and 

this policy statement to a term that is less than the minimum of the amended 

guideline range.”). Moreover, Vanga was not entitled to counsel, see United States 

v. Townsend, 98 F.3d 510, 512-13 (9th Cir. 1996), and given Vanga’s ineligibility 

for a reduction, the court did not err in failing to appoint counsel. 

To the extent that Vanga seeks to challenge his indictment, conviction or the 

sentencing court’s original calculation of his Guidelines range, these claims are not 

cognizable in a section 3582(c)(2) proceeding. See Dillon v. United States, 560 

U.S. 817, 826, 831 (2010) (alleged errors committed at the original sentencing 

hearing cannot be corrected under section 3582(c)(2), which does not permit a 

plenary resentencing proceeding). Likewise, Vanga’s contention that his medical 

problems and alleged sentencing disparities entitled him to a sentence reduction 

under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) is unavailing. See id. at 826 (court only considers 

whether a reduction is warranted under section 3553(a) if it first concludes that a 
3 17-30156 

reduction is authorized under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10). Finally, the district court did 

not err in concluding that, because the Director of the Bureau of Prison had not 

moved for a compassionate sentence reduction in Vanga’s case, it lacked authority 

to grant such a reduction. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). 

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 Nos. 33-45573,33-88590, 33-311419, 33-333647, 333-81647, 333-101467, 333-126785, 333-135675 and 333-147705), andin the Registration Statements (Form S-3 No. 333-97207 and Form S-4 No. 333-107089) of MedicisPharmaceutical Corporation of our reports dated February 26, 2008, with respect to the consolidatedfinancial statements and schedule of Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation and the effectiveness ofinternal control over financial reporting of Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation, included in itsAnnual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2007.                 /s/ Ernst & Young LLP         Phoenix, Arizona
#### In re: The 12 PERCENT FUND I, LLC, Debtor, Roderick McBroom and Thomas G. Junghans, Appellants, v. David M. Reaves, Chapter 11 Trustee; et al., Appellees.

No. 08-60026.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 10, 2010.*

Filed Aug. 26, 2010.

Roderick R. McBroom, pro se.

Thomas G. Junghans, pro se.

David M. Reaves, pro se.

Bryce A. Suzuki, Esquire, Bryan Cave LLP, Phoenix, AZ, for The 12 Percent Fund I, LLC.

Michael J. Dailey, Esquire, Arizona Corporation Commission, Legal Division, Phoenix, AZ, for Arizona Corporation Commission.

Office of the U.S. Trustee, Phoenix, AZ, for United States Trustee/Phoenix.

Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

*466MEMORANDUM **

Roderick McBroom and Thomas S. Jun-ghans appeal pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s (“BAP’s”) order dismissing their interlocutory appeal of the bankruptcy court’s order denying their motion to dismiss a chapter 11 bankruptcy case. We review de novo our own jurisdiction and whether a bankruptcy court’s decision is final under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). *Silver Sage Partners, Ltd. v. City of Desert Hot Springs (In re City of Desert Hot Springs),*339 F.3d 782, 787 (9th Cir.2003). We dismiss.

The denial of a motion to dismiss a chapter 11 bankruptcy for bad faith is not a final decision over which we have appellate jurisdiction. *See id.*at 788-91. Moreover, we have no jurisdiction to consider whether the BAP’s exercise of its discretion to decline jurisdiction was proper. *See id.*at 788.

Appellants’ motions to extend time to file their reply brief are granted. The Clerk shall file the reply brief submitted on July 16, 2010.

DISMISSED.

**

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

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3319 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3319

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 20, 2012

  Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To allow the Pascua Yaqui Tribe to determine the requirements for 
                       membership in that tribe.

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

SECTION 1. REQUIREMENTS FOR MEMBERSHIP DETERMINED BY TRIBE.

    Section 3 of Public Law 95-375 (25 U.S.C. 1300f-2) is amended to 
read as follows:
    ``Sec. 3.  For the purposes of section 1 of this Act, membership of 
the Pascua Yaqui Tribe shall consist of any United States citizen of 
Pascua Yaqui blood enrolled by the tribe.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 19, 2012.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```