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

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
               This schedule  contains  restated summary  financial  information
               extracted  from the unaudited  condensed  consolidated  financial
               statements  included  in the  registrant's  Form  10-Q/A  for the
               period  ended June 30, 1998 and is  qualified  in its entirety by
               reference to such Form 10-Q/A.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001016439
<NAME>                        Intelligroup, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   Jun-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         2,610
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  27,341
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               41,038
<PP&E>                                         5,738
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 52,464
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          12,517
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       126
<OTHER-SE>                                     39,718
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   52,468
<SALES>                                        62,759
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               62,759
<CGS>                                          40,654
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  40,654
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               16,212
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (16)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                5,909
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1,761
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            4,148
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   4,148
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.33 <F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.32 <F2>
<FN>
<F1>      This amount represents Basic Earnings per Share in accordance with the
          requirements of Statement of Financial  Accounting Standards No. 128 -
          "Earnings per Share".

<F2>      This amount  represents  Diluted Earnings per Share in accordance with
          the  requirements of Statement of Financial  Accounting  Standards No.
          128 - "Earnings per Share".
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 287 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 287

            For relief of Enrique Soriano and Areli Soriano.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 7, 2009

   Mr. Gene Green of Texas introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
            For relief of Enrique Soriano and Areli Soriano.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR ENRIQUE SORIANO AND ARELI 
              SORIANO.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of section 
201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Enrique Soriano and Areli 
Soriano shall each be eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for 
adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for 
permanent residence upon filing an application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa under section 204 of such Act or for adjustment of 
status to lawful permanent resident.
    (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Enrique Soriano and Areli Soriano 
enters the United States before the filing deadline specified in 
subsection (c), he or she shall be considered to have entered and 
remained lawfully and shall, if otherwise eligible, be eligible for 
adjustment of status under section 245 of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act as of the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) 
and (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status is filed 
with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
    (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting of an 
immigrant visa or permanent residence to Enrique Soriano and Areli 
Soriano, the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to 
reduce by 2, during the current or next following fiscal year, the 
total number of immigrant visas that are made available to natives of 
the country of the aliens' birth under section 203(a) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act or, if applicable, the total number of 
immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the country of 
the aliens' birth under section 202(e) of such Act.
    (e) Denial of Preferential Immigration Treatment for Certain 
Relatives.--The natural parents, brothers, and sisters of Enrique 
Soriano and Areli Soriano shall not, by virtue of such relationship, be 
accorded any right, privilege, or status under the Immigration and 
Nationality Act.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
     consolidated balance sheet and the consolidated statement of operations
     and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such schedules.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Mar-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   Dec-31-1999
<CASH>                                         48,505
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  560,365
<ALLOWANCES>                                   137,928
<INVENTORY>                                    321,887
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               818,933
<PP&E>                                         523,381
<DEPRECIATION>                                 470,189
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,608,001
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          3,031,523
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    2,426,000
<COMMON>                                       4,196,933
<OTHER-SE>                                     (8,434,666)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,608,001
<SALES>                                        3,020,120
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               3,020,120
<CGS>                                          1,766,678
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  3,137,004
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               5,651
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             113,991
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (236,526)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (236,526)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (236,526)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.12)



</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of First Montauk Securities Corp., Respondent, v Joseph G. Chiulli, Appellant.

[666 NYS2d 33]

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lockman, J.), entered November 20, 1996, which granted the application.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“Preemptive judicial intervention in the arbitration process is warranted where the arbitrator [can] not grant any relief without violating public policy” *(Matter of Imperial House [Local 32B-32J],*154 AD2d 534, 535). The decisional law clearly indicates that a discharged debtor cannot pursue a claim which it failed to disclose in its schedule of assets filed with the bankruptcy court *(see, Dynamics Corp. v Marine Midland Bank-N. Y.,*69 NY2d 191; *Robinson v Wiertel Constr.,*185 AD2d 664; *In re Drexel Burnham Lambert Group,*160 Bankr 508). Here, the appellant, who failed to list his claim against the petitioner on a timely basis, is seeking to pursue that claim. Since the appellant’s pursuit of his claim is against public policy, any remedy fashioned by the arbitrator would be violative of that policy. Thus, the application for a stay of arbitration was properly granted. Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Goldstein and Lerner, JJ., concur.
#### Ricky Leon DORITY, Petitioner-Appellant v. Warden Keith ROY, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 10-40819

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 1, 2011.

Ricky Leon Dority, FCI Texarkana, pro se.

Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Proceeding *pro se,*Ricky Leon Dority, federal prisoner # 03636-063, appeals the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging the constitutionality of his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (felon in possession of a firearm). Dority contends: the conviction is invalid because, in the light of *District of Columbia v. Heller,*554 U.S. 570, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637 (2008) (finding District of Columbia’s prohibition on in-home possession of handguns unconstitutional), the Second Amendment prohibits any infringement on the right to bear arms; he was convicted of a nonexistent offense; and his claim fits within the “savings clause” of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 because § 922(g) is facially unconstitutional.

*402The court’s findings of fact are reviewed for clear error; its legal conclusions, *de novo. Padilla v. United States,*416 F.3d 424, 425 (5th Cir.2005). A § 2241 petition attacking custody resulting from a federally-imposed sentence may be entertained if petitioner establishes that § 2255’s remedy is “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention”. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). Petitioner must show his claims: (1) are “based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision which establishes that [he] may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense”; and (2) were “foreclosed by circuit law at the time when the claim[s] should have been raised in [his] trial, appeal, or first § 2255 motion”. *Reyes-Requena v. United States,*243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir.2001).

The Supreme Court noted in *Heller:*the Second Amendment “is not unlimited”; and the Court expressly reaffirmed the “longstanding prohibition[ ] on the possession of firearms by felons.... ” 554 U.S. at 626-27, 128 S.Ct. 2783. Prior to *Heller,*in *United States v. Harrington,*351 F.3d 632, 633-34 (5th Cir.2003), our court held that § 922(g), prohibiting the possession of firearms by convicted felons, does *not*violate the Second Amendment right to bear arms. In 2009, in the light of *Heller,*our court reaffirmed Harrington!s holding, stating: *“Heller*provides no basis for reconsidering *Harrington”. United States v. Anderson,*559 F.3d 348, 352 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 2814, 174 L.Ed.2d 308 (2009).

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                        DIGITAL DESCRIPTOR SYSTEMS, INC.
                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 Descriptor Systems, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB/A-2 for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Anthony Shupin, Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer, of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)   The Quarterly Report on Form 10-KSB/A-2 of the Company 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.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Digital Descriptor Systems, Inc. and will be retained by Digital
Descriptor Systems, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.

Date: December 29, 2005


/s/ Anthony Shupin
-------------------------------------
Anthony Shupin
President and Chief Executive Officer
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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-40642

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

FELIX GUERRERO-FLORES, also known as Antonio Castillo

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:05-CR-975-1

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Felix Guerrero-Flores

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Guerrero-Flores has not filed a response.

Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no

nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to

withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein,

and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 30, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### APPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA 

### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT

MICHAEL JOHN VERRA, JR.,

Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 2D21-1158 September 17, 2021 Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P.9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Pasco County; Kimberly Campbell Judge. Sara Mollo, Public Defender, and Maria DeLiberato, Assistant Public Defender, Clearwater, for Appellant. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. LaROSE, BLACK, and, LUCAS, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Felipe CARMELO-GOMEZ, Appellant.

No. 11-1006.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: May 18, 2011.

Filed: June 13, 2011.

Lolita A. Velazquez-Aguilu, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis, MN, for Appellee.

Felipe Carmelo-Gomez, Folkston, GA, pro se.

Katherine M. Menendez, Assistant, Lyonel Norris, Assistant, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Minneapolis, MN, for Appellant.

Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Felipe Carmelo-Gomez pleaded guilty to unlawfully reentering the United States after having been deported following conviction for an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2). The district court1 sentenced him to 24 months in prison, below the Guidelines range. On appeal, his counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that the sentence is unreasonable.

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion or impose an unreasonable sentence, because it calculated the undisputed advisory Guidelines sentencing range, considered relevant factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and explained its reasons for the sentence. *See United States v. Feemster,*572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir.2009) (en banc).

Having reviewed the record independently under *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and we affirm the judgment.

1

. The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.
Order issued October 

## I? ,2012

In The 

## Qtnurt nf Appeals**~ift}f** 

## llistri.ct nf wcxas at llallas

No. 05-12-01102-CV RONALD KINABREW, Appellant 

# v. INERGY PROPANE, L.L.C., Appellee 

### ORDER We GRANT appellant's October 16, 2012 second unopposed motion for an extension of time to file a brief. We ORDER appellant's brieftendered to this Court on October 16,2012 filed as ofthe date ofthis order.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Pedro Lujan BELLEZA, also known as Pedro Belleia Lujan, also known as Pedro Balleza Lujan, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-20123

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 5, 2011.

James Lee Turner, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Timothy William Crooks, Laura Fletcher Leavitt, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Pedi’o Lujan Belleza has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Lujan Belleza has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record referenced therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

**Pursuant to 5tu 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.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

VALLEY FORGE MILITARY ACADEMY 

AND COLLEGE,

Respondent

v.

WILLIAM O'BRIEN,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 86 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 18th day of August, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
#### Ethridge *vs.*The State of Georgia.

The evidence in this case showed the defendant guilty of murder, and the jury having so found, there was no error in refusing a new trial, on the ground that the verdict was' contrary to law and the evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

March 17, 1885.

Blandeord, Justice.
(June 19, 2014)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Juan A. Rodriguez, Appellant.

[987 NYS2d 264]

Peters, PJ.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Williams, J.), rendered June 22, 2011, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of driving while intoxicated.

Defendant’s sole argument on appeal is that his statements to police and information concerning field sobriety and chemical tests administered and refused following his arrest should have been suppressed. However, only “[a]n order finally denying a motion to suppress evidence” may be reviewed on appeal following a guilty plea (CPL 710.70 [2]; *see People v Fernandez,*67 NY2d 686, 688 [1986]). By pleading guilty after the suppression *1183hearing hut before a decision was rendered on his underlying suppression motion, defendant forfeited his right to appellate review of all claims related to that pending motion *(see People v Fernandez,*67 NY2d at 688; *People v Brabham,*112 AD3d 1066, 1067 [2013]; *People v Morrison,*106 AD3d 1201, 1202 [2013]; *People v Adams,*31 AD3d 1063, 1064 [2006], *lv denied*7 NY3d 845 [2006]; *People v Williams,*6 AD3d 746, 747 [2004], *lv denied*3 NY3d 650 [2004]). Defendant’s suggestion that County Court purposefully withheld decision on the suppression motion so as to take his guilty plea is belied by the record.

Stein, McCarthy and Egan Jr., JJ., concur.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 99.2


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

The undersigned, Gary Allanson, Chief Executive Officer of International
Dispensing Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), and Edwin Tharp,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)  The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the period
          ended March 31, 2003, which this certification accompanies, 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 as of and for the periods presented in the Report.




May 15, 2003                                  /s/ Edwin Tharp
                                              -------------------------
                                              Edwin Tharp
                                              Chief Financial Officer










                                       47
#### JULIO CENTENO COLON *v.*COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION

(AC 29312)

Lavine, Beach and Hennessy, Js.

Argued October 19

officially released November 3, 2009

Per Curiam.

The appeal is dismissed.
EXHIBIT 32.2



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



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sunterra Corporation (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, in the capacities and dates indicated below, hereby certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) The information contained
in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                     
|---------------------
|/s/    STEVEN E. WEST
|                     



Dated: May 10, 2004