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

<ARTICLE>                                          5
       
<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                       DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                                       1,123,336
<SECURITIES>                                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                6,198,258
<ALLOWANCES>                                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                     0
<PP&E>                                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                             192,831,691
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                0
<BONDS>                                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                0
<PREFERRED>                                                          0
<COMMON>                                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                                  93,201,156
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                               192,831,691
<SALES>                                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                            25,729,470
<CGS>                                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                            21,908,523
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                               257,814
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                           5,773,463
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                             (2,210,330)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                         (2,210,330)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                      0
<CHANGES>                                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                                (2,210,330)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                        0
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1



                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT
           As adopted to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, E. Gerald Kay, the Chief Executive Officer of Integrated  BioPharma,  Inc.
(the "Company"),  certify,  pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1)      the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarterly
         period ended March 31, 2004 (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.

Dated:   May 14, 2004


                                         By:/s/ E. Gerald Kay
                                         --------------------
                                         E. Gerald Kay
                                         Chief Executive Officer
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Lindsey Wayne Trueblood, * From the 42nd District

 Court of Taylor County,

 Trial Court No. 25706A.

Vs. No. 11-14-00074-CR * April 24, 2014

The State of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

 (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

 Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

 This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that the appeal 

should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Therefore, in accordance with this 

court’s opinion, the appeal is dismissed.
Exhibit 10.7


 





HARMONY MERGER CORP.


777 Third Avenue, 37th Floor


New York, New York 10017


 


_______________, 2014


 


Crescendo Advisors II, LLC


777 Third Avenue, 37th Floor


New York, New York 10017


 


Ladies and Gentlemen:


 


This letter will confirm our agreement that,
commencing on the effective date (the “Effective Date”) of the registration statement (the “Registration
Statement”) for the initial public offering (the “IPO”) of the securities of Harmony Merger
Corp. (the “Company”) and continuing until the earlier of (i) the consummation by the Company of an initial
business combination or (ii) the Company’s liquidation (in each case as described in the Registration Statement) (such earlier
date hereinafter referred to as the “Termination Date”), Crescendo Advisors II, LLC shall make available
to the Company certain office space and administrative and support services as may be required by the Company from time to time,
situated at 777 Third Avenue, 37th Floor, New York, New York 10017 (or any successor location). In exchange therefore, the Company
shall pay Crescendo Advisors II, LLC the sum of $12,500 per month on the Effective Date and continuing monthly thereafter until
the Termination Date. Crescendo Advisors II, LLC hereby agrees that it does not have any right, title, interest or claim of any
kind in or to any monies that may be set aside in a trust account (the “Trust Account”) that may be established
upon the consummation of the IPO (the “Claim”) and hereby waives any Claim it may have in the future
as a result of, or arising out of, any negotiations, contracts or agreements with the Company and will not seek recourse against
the Trust Account for any reason whatsoever.


 


	 	Very truly yours, 
	 	 	 
	 	HARMONY MERGER CORP.
	 	 	 
	 	By:	 
	 	 	Name:
	 	 	Title:



 


	AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED BY:
	 
	CRESCENDO ADVISORS II, LLC
	 
	By:	 	 
	 	Name:	 
	 	Title:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997             DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                     106,545,000               7,244,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                              174,727,000             155,821,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                11,116,000               9,840,000
<INVENTORY>                                132,422,000             122,821,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0                       0
<PP&E>                                      11,465,000               9,922,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             454,208,000             326,006,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0                       0
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                       199,000                 183,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 152,794,000              96,759,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               454,208,000             326,006,000
<SALES>                                     45,796,000             121,330,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            53,555,000             143,475,000
<CGS>                                       12,061,000              31,302,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               32,821,000              92,797,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            10,672,000              37,370,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             2,057,000               6,286,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,678,000              10,191,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,327,000             (3,169,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,731,000             (4,907,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,596,000               1,738,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,596,000               2,137,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.13                  (0.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.13                  (0.12)
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ERIC ELROD,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 537 EAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 8th day of June, 2022

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
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





I, Mitchell K. Dauerman, Chief Financial Officer of The Ultimate Software Group, Inc., hereby certify to the best of my knowledge and belief that this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and that the information contained
in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of The Ultimate Software Group, Inc.








/s/ Mitchell K. DauermanMitchell K. DauermanChief Financial OfficerAugust 10, 2009


21
Dismissed and Opinion Filed April 7, 2015 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-14-01471-CV STEVEN RAY WALT ERS, Appellant V. FIRST GUARANTY MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-13-05552-B



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Wright, Justi ce Lang-Miers, and Justice Stoddart Opinion by Chief Justice Wright The clerk’s record in this cas e is overdue. By letter date d January 5, 2015, we informed appellant that the Dallas County Clerk notified the Court the cler k’s record had not been filed because appellant had not paid for or made arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record. We directed appellant to file written verification he had paid for or made arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record or written documentation showi ng appellant had been found entitled to proceed without payment of costs. We cautioned appella nt that if he did not file the required documentation within ten days, we might dismiss th e appeal without furthe r notice. In response, appellant filed a letter on January 14, 2015 asking fo r an extension of time to pay for the clerk’s record, stating that he would pay for the clerk’ s record on January 22, 2015. To date, the clerk’s–2– record has not been filed and appellant has not corresponded with the Cour t regarding the status of the clerk’s record. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 37.3(b).

141471F.P05 /Carolyn Wright/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE–3– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
STEVEN RAY WALTERS, Appellant
No. 05-14-01471-CV V.
FIRST GUARANTY MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-13-05552-B. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. Justices Lang-Miers and Stoddart participating. In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED

. It is ORDERED that appellee FIRST GUARA NTY MORTGAGE CORPORATION recover its costs of this appeal fr om appellant STEVEN RAY WALTERS.
Judgment entered April 7, 2015.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

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

In connection with theAnnual Report of Polymer Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James L.Schaeffer, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1)           The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

| Date: March 16, 2006 | /s/ JAMES L. SCHAEFFER

James L. Schaeffer

*Chief Executive Officer* |
|---------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained bythe Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6881

ANGEL PICHARDO-MARTINEZ,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

U.S. MARSHAL SERVICE; LAKE COUNTY JAIL; LAKE COUNTY SHERIFF 

DEPARTMENT; LAKE COUNTY JAIL MEDICAL STAFF; LAKE COUNTY 

JAIL SHIFT COMMANDER ON DUTY BETWEEN 02-10-16 TO 04-19-16,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at 

Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, Chief District Judge. (3:19-cv-00070-GMG)

Submitted: September 26, 2019 Decided: October 1, 2019

Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Angel Pichardo-Martinez, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Angel Pichardo-Martinez appeals the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice PichardoMartinez’s complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. 

Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A(b)(1) 

(2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm 

for the reasons stated by the district court. Pichardo-Martinez v. U.S. Marshal Serv., No. 

3:19-cv-00070-GMG (N.D.W. Va. June 7, 2019). We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court 

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 3.5


[SECRETARY OF STATE OF NEVADA STAMP]


             CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
                            (After Issuance of Stock)


                                E-NET CORPORATION

        We the undersigned Michael P. Roth (President) and Karen Conway
(Secretary) of E-NET CORPORATION (Name of Corporation) Do hereby certify:

     That the Board of Directors of said corporation at a meeting duly convened,
held on the 6th day of April, 1999, adopted a resolution to amend the original
articles as follows:

        Article II is hereby amended to read as follows:

        A. The name of this corporation is "E-NET FINANCIAL CORPORATION"

        The number of shares of the corporation outstanding and entitled to vote
on an amendment to the Articles of Incorporation is 4,500,000 that the said
changes and amendment have been consented to and approved by a majority vote of
the stockholders holding at least a majority of each class of stock outstanding
and entitled to vote thereon.

                                                /s/  MIKE ROTH
                                            ------------------------------
                                            President or Vice President

                                                 /s/ KAREN M. CONWAY
                                            ------------------------------
                                            Secretary or Asst. Secretary

State of California )
                    )  ss.
County of Orange    )

        On this 12th day of April, 1999, before me the undersigned Notary
Public, personally appeared Karen M. Conway.

        [X]    Personally known to me
               Or
        [ ]    Proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the
person whose name is subscribed to the within Instrument and acknowledged to me
that she executed the same in her authorized capacity, and that by her signature
on the instrument the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person
acted, executed the instrument.

        WITNESS my hand and official seal.

          Signature   Angela M. Bernard                   (Seal)
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         253,578
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    836,938
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                     14,704,375
<ALLOWANCE>                                   (42,396)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             116,167,439
<DEPOSITS>                                           0
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             27,316
<LONG-TERM>                                  4,072,277
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,200
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,066,646
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              16,167,439
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                224,801
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                6,970
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               231,771
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              60,370
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          171,401
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  7,837
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                163,565
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     163,565
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   160,022
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                     27,526
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                19,149
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               42,396
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0

        


</TABLE>
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 10, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-50613

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JORGE LUIS SANCHEZ-VENEGAS,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. DR-02-CR-717-1-AML

--------------------

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Jorge Luis Sanchez-Venegas appeals the sentence imposed

following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United

States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Sanchez-Venegas contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior

conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element

of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have

been alleged in his indictment. Sanchez-Venegas maintains that
No. 03-50613

-2-

he pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple

reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence

exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be

imposed for that offense.

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Sanchez-Venegas acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.