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

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000059440
<NAME> BGLS INC.  
<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>                                           4,754
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,462
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     39,312
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                67,366
<PP&E>                                          45,775
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 128,916
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          160,675
<BONDS>                                        400,635
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (513,115)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   128,916
<SALES>                                        389,615
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               389,615
<CGS>                                          202,121
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  202,121
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                26,646
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              65,581
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (53,276)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,135
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (54,411)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   1,536
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (52,875)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002   Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officers of the registrant certify, to the best of their knowledge, that the registrant's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 (the "Form 10-Q") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.   Date: May 23, 2011  NextMart, Inc.  /s/Wang YihanWang YihanChief Executive Officer   /s/Carla ZhouCarla ZhouChief Financial Officer       1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       1,585,611
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,313,151
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    140,976
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,099,346
<PP&E>                                      11,322,618
<DEPRECIATION>                                 402,084
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              16,511,845
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,997,293
<BONDS>                                      8,128,858
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            2,933
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,822,475
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                16,511,845
<SALES>                                      6,697,425
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,697,425
<CGS>                                          516,597
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,752,139
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           (1,220,312)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             785,607
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,048,196
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,048,196
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,048,196
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .28


</TABLE>
<PAGE>


                                                                    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 quarterly report of St. Joseph Capital Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
John W. Rosenthal, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

         (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.



/s/ John W. Rosenthal
John W. Rosenthal
Chief Executive Officer

November 14, 2003
#### Michelle Fassino Viehl, Plaintiff, v Doran Group et al., Defendants, and Mildred Didio, Esq., et al., Respondents. Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP, Nonparty Appellant.

[986 NYS2d 847]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud, nonparty Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Connolly, J.), entered August 28, 2012, which denied its motion, in effect, for leave to renew its prior motion to withdraw as counsel for the defendants Mildred C. Didio and HV Abstract, which was denied *696in an order of the same court (Lefkowitz, J.), dated January 23, 2012.

Ordered that the order entered August 28, 2012, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The appellant, nonparty Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrews-berry LLP (hereinafter Traub Lieberman), was retained by American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company (hereinafter American Guarantee), the liability insurance carrier for the defendant Mildred Didio, to represent Didio and the defendant HV Abstract in this action, which was commenced in August 2008. In a letter dated November 16, 2011, American Guarantee advised Didio that it was disclaiming coverage and that, effective November 15, 2011, it would no longer pay any defense costs incurred by her in this action. After Didio subsequently refused Traub Lieberman’s request that she personally pay for her defense costs, Traub Lieberman moved to withdraw as counsel. That motion was denied in an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lefkowitz, J.), dated January 23, 2012. Approximately five months later, Traub Lieberman made a second motion to withdraw as counsel. In an order entered August 28, 2012, the Supreme Court (Connolly, J.) denied the motion.

Initially, we regard Traub Lieberman’s second motion as one for leave to renew. A motion for leave to renew shall be based, inter alia, on new facts not offered on the prior motion that would change the prior determination, and shall contain reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion *(see*CPLR 2221 [e]; *Koeppel-Vulpis v Lucente,*110 AD3d 851, 852 [2013]; *Eskenazi v Mackoul,*92 AD3d 828, 828-829 [2012]). Here, Traub Lieberman failed to set forth new facts which would warrant a change in the Supreme Court’s prior determination that Traub Lieberman’s motion to withdraw as counsel was an improper attempt to test the propriety of the disclaimer of coverage by American Guarantee *(see Pryer v DeMatteis Orgs.,*259 AD2d 476, 477 [1999]; *Garcia v Zito,*242 AD2d 258, 259 [1997]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied Traub Lieberman’s motion, in effect, for leave to renew.

Mastro, J.P, Roman, Hinds-Radix and LaSalle, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Polymer Group, Inc. (the Company) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dennis E. Norman, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 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: March 30, 2012 |  |  |  | By: |  | /S/ DENNIS E. NORMAN   
|                     |  |  | 
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | Dennis E. Norman       
|                     |  |  | 
|                     |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer
#### Norita HILWANI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-71206.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.*

Filed March 9, 2011.

Kathleen Siok-Sien Koh, Esquire, Law Office of Kathleen S. Koh, Whittier, CA, for Petitioner.

Remi Adalemo, Trial, OIL, Blair O’Con-nor, Assistant Director, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel *676Department 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 **

Norita Hilwani, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s decision (“IJ”) denying her application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings, *Wakkary v. Holder,*558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir.2009), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports both the IJ’s finding that the harassment Hilwani experienced on the street and the incident in which a man stole her necklace were not on account of a protected ground, *see Fisher v. INS,*79 F.3d 955, 962 (9th Cir.1996) (en banc) (no evidence that persecutors of woman in violation of Islamic dress standards “knew of her political or religious beliefs”), and the IJ’s finding that the harm she experienced, even considered in the aggregate, did not rise to the level of past persecution. *See Prasad v. INS,*47 F.3d 336, 339 (9th Cir.1995).

In addition, the record does not compel the conclusion that Hilwani, as a moderate Muslim, has demonstrated a well-founded fear of future persecution even under disfavored group analysis. *Cf. Sael v. Ashcroft,*386 F.3d 922 (9th Cir.2004). Substantial evidence also supports the IJ’s determination that she did not meet her burden to show that relocation in Indonesia would not be reasonable. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(3)(i).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Seberiano AGUILAR-TORRES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-10863

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 7, 2011.

Nancy E. Larson, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.

Kevin Joel Page, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Dallas, TX, David E. Sloan, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Lubbock, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before KING, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Seberiano Aguilar-Torres was convicted of one count of illegal reentry into the *402United States and was sentenced to serve 60 months in prison and a three-year term of supervised release. In this appeal, he argues that his sentence, which was the result of an upward variance, is substantively unreasonable. Under Aguilar-Torres’s view, his above-guidelines-range-sentence was not justified because his is not an exceptional case.

This court reviews sentencing decisions for reasonableness and applies the abuse-of-discretion standard. *United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez,*517 F.3d 751, 764 (5th Cir.2008). Our review of the record and Aguilar-Torres’s arguments reveals no abuse of discretion in connection with his sentence.

Aguilar-Torres argues that the district court acted improperly by relying in part on his “stale” convictions to choose a sentence, and he also complains that these convictions were not serious enough to warrant the variance. He notes that he received the same sentence applicable to those who have received the 16-level increase given under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 to defendants with a prior aggravated felony conviction. . Also important in Aguilar-Torres’s view, and contributing to the argument that his sentence is unduly harsh, is the fact that not one of his prior convictions involved violence. None of these arguments shows that his sentence “(1) does not account for a factor that should have received significant weight, (2) gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or (3) represents a clear error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors.” *United States v. Smith,*440 F.3d 704, 708 (5th Cir.2006).

Insofar as Aguilar-Torres contends that the district court gave inadequate reasons for its choice of sentence, this argument fails. The court’s reasons, tied to specific facts and particular § 3553(a) factors, were sufficient to justify the extent of the variance and to satisfy the requirement that the court give reasons to permit meaningful appellate review. *See Rita v. United States,*551 U.S. 338, 357-58, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007). Finally, the departure, although substantial, does not represent an abuse of the district court’s vast sentencing discretion when considered in light of the totality of the circumstances. *See Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); *United States v. Brantley,*537 F.3d 347, 349 (5th Cir.2008).

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be *402published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Philip Robinson, Appellant.

[667 NYS2d 270]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Kuffner, J.), rendered June 26, 1995, convicting him of murder in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Altman, J. P., Friedmann, Krausman and McGinity, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                  EXHIBIT 23.01

                         Independent Auditors' Consent


The Board of Directors
CyberGuard Corporation

We consent to incorporation by reference in the following registration
statements: Form S-8 (No. 333-88446); Form S-8 (No. 333-28813); Form S-3 (No.
333-06253); Form S-3 (No. 333-09211); and Form S-3 (No. 333-28693) of
CyberGuard Corporation of our report dated September 23, 1997, relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of CyberGuard Corporation and subsidiaries as of
June 30, 1997 and 1996, and the related consolidated statements of operations,
shareholders equity, and cash flows for the year ended June 30, 1997, the nine
months ended June 30, 1996, and the year ended September 30, 1995, which report
appears in the June 30, 1997 annual report on Form 10-K of CyberGuard
Corporation.

                                                     KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP

Miami, Florida
September 29, 1997
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, October 12, 2016.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, October 12, 2016

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A17I0030. GERREN SMITH v. THE STATE.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

2016SR0323
EX-10.1


 Exhibit 10.1 

AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT 

This Amendment No. 3 (the “Amendment”) is made and entered into this 15th day of December, 2014 by and between Dover
Motorsports, Inc. and Nashville Speedway, USA, Inc. (collectively, the “Seller”) and NeXovation, Inc. (the “Purchaser”). 

WHEREAS, Seller and Purchaser entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement dated May 28, 2014, as amended by Amendment No. 1 dated
August 26, 2014 and Amendment No. 2 dated October 7, 2014 (the “Agreement”), in which the Purchaser agreed to purchase from Seller the property known as Nashville Superspeedway; 

WHEREAS, unless otherwise defined herein, terms shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Agreement; 

WHEREAS, the parties agree to extend the date for Closing, subject to the terms and conditions of this Amendment No. 3 (which shall
supersede Amendment No. 1 and Amendment No. 2); 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Seller and Purchaser do hereby agree as follows: 
  

	1.	Closing shall take place on or before January 26, 2015. Proration of real estate taxes shall be calculated as if closing had occurred on September 25, 2014. 


 

	2.	The Inspection Period has expired and Purchaser makes no objections under Section 5 (a) to the Agreement. 

  

	3.	$1,100,000, representing the balance of the Earnest Money, shall be released to Seller and Escrow Agent is hereby instructed to wire such funds to Seller on or before December 19, 2014. In addition, Purchaser shall
wire $200,000 to Seller on or before December 19, 2014. Such payments are in consideration of this Amendment and non-refundable. If Closing occurs, all payments made under this Amendment No. 3 and previous payments under Amendment
No. 1 and Amendment No. 2 (totaling $1,700,000) will be applied against the Purchase Price. 

  

	4.	Except as expressly modified above, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 

 IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, Seller and Purchaser have executed this Amendment the day and year first written above. 
  

			
	Purchaser: NeXovation, Inc.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Michael B. Kinnard

		 	Michael B. Kinnard, EVP – General Counsel
	
	Seller: Nashville Speedway, USA, Inc.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Klaus Belohoubek

		 	Klaus Belohoubek,
		 	Senior Vice President – General Counsel
	
	Seller: Dover Motorsports, Inc.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Klaus Belohoubek

		 	Klaus Belohoubek,
		 	Senior Vice President – General Counsel
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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Digital Lightwave, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the report), I Kenneth T. Myers, President and Chief Executive Officer and Chief Accounting Officer and Principal 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:

(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.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906
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.

Date: November 7, 2006



By:

/s/ KENNETH T. MYERSKenneth T. MyersPresident and Chief Executive Officer (Principal
Executive Officer)


Date: November 7, 2006



By:

/s/ KENNETH T. MYERSKenneth T. MyersChief Accounting Officer(Principal Financial Officer)