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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
ACCOMPANYING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           8,205
<SECURITIES>                                    76,682
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,002
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,308
<INVENTORY>                                        448
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               123,181
<PP&E>                                          38,602
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,074
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 419,377
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           41,193
<BONDS>                                          7,029
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       525,820
<OTHER-SE>                                   (168,362)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   357,458
<SALES>                                          6,851
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                45,603
<CGS>                                            8,943
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   23,232
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,047
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 901
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (71,405)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (23,550)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (47,855)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (47,855)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.86)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.86)


</TABLE>
#### Dorothy P. Hawkins, Appellant, v Miriam I. Foshee, Respondent.

[666 NYS2d 88]

—Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs and motion denied. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). In support of her motion, defendant relied upon the report of a chiropractor who examined plaintiff five years after the accident. That report states that plaintiff suffered a cervical and thoracic strain and sprain causally related to the accident that aggravated symptoms of preexisting cervical and thoracic spondylosis. The chiropractor concludes that the accident left plaintiff with a “mild partial disability” and that no fundamental change in her condition can be expected.

In our view, defendant’s own “proof, showing that plaintiff suffers from chronic neck, shoulder and back conditions that have restricted her physical activities, raises a triable question of fact as to whether she sustained a significant limitation of use of a body function or system *(see, Larrabee v State of New York,*216 AD2d 772; *Weaver v Howard,*206 AD2d 793)” *(Thomas v Hulslander,*233 AD2d 567). Further, the proof that plaintiff continued to suffer from her accident-related injuries five years after the accident and that no change in her condition was expected raises the further question whether those injuries are permanent *(see, Thomas v Hulslander, supra).*(Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Michalek, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Hayes, Callahan and Fallon, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph A. Cioto, Appellant.

[988 NYS2d 502]

Appeal from a judg*1223ment of the County Court of Ulster County (Williams, J.), rendered December 20, 2012, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of burglary in the second degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree.

In satisfaction of a multi-count indictment and a superior court information, defendant pleaded guilty to burglary in the second degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree, and waived his right to appeal. He was sentenced as a prior felony offender in accordance with the plea agreement to, among other things, concurrent prison terms of 12 years and IV2 to 3 years, respectively, followed by five years of postrelease supervision. Defendant appeals.

Appellate counsel seeks to be relieved of his assignment of representing defendant on the ground that there are no nonfrivolous issues to be raised on appeal. Based upon our review of the record, we agree. Therefore, the judgment is affirmed and counsel’s request is granted *(see People v Cruwys,*113 AD2d 979 [1985], *lv denied*67 NY2d 650 [1986]; *see generally People v Stokes,*95 NY2d 633 [2001]).

Lahtinen, J.E, Stein, Garry, Lynch and Clark, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and application to be relieved of assignment granted.
111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2971 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 630 Northeast Killingsworth Avenue in Portland, Oregon, as the ‘‘Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Post 

Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 2971 EH

1 SECTION 1. DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. POST OFFICE. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 630 Northeast Killingsworth Av4 enue in Portland, Oregon, shall be known and designated 

5 as the ‘‘Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Post Office’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Dr. Martin Luther 

10 King, Jr. Post Office’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 22, 

2009. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2971 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostLuther King, Jr. Post Office’’. Avenue in Portland, Oregon, as the ‘‘Dr. Martin al Service located at 630 Northeast Killingsworth
Order filed December 1, 2011. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-11-00155-CV

____________

REGINALD PETTEWAY, Appellant

V.

TEXAS DOW EMPLOYEE'S CREDIT UNION, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law # 4 and Probate Court

Brazoria County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CI044286

O R D E R

Appellant=s brief was due November 21, 2011. No brief or motion for extension of 

time has been filed. 

Unless appellant submits his brief, and a motion reasonably explaining why the 

brief was late, to the clerk of this court on or before December 15, 2011, the court will 

dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b). 

PER CURIAM
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**Certification PursuantTo 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 30, 2006 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Willis C.Moore, III, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1)           The Report fully complieswith 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 14, 2007 | /s/ Willis  C. Moore, III                     |
|---------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|
|                      | Willis C. Moore, III*Chief Financial 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.

----
**Exhibit 32.1.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Robert B. Barnhill, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of TESSCOTechnologies Incorporated, (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

# 1.   The Annual Report on Form 10-K ofthe Company for the period ended April 1, 2007, as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

# 2.   The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

| Date:   June  13, 2007 |   | /s/ Robert B. Barnhill, Jr. |   |   |
|----------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------|--------|--------|
|                             |   | Robert B. Barnhill, Jr.     |   |   |

 

Theforegoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Reportpursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to beincorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made beforeor after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language insuch filing.

 

----
Slip Op. 20–5

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

__________________________________________ 

: 

CHINA STEEL CORP., : 

: 

Plaintiff, : 

: Before: Richard K. Eaton, Judge 

v. : 

: Court No. 17-00152 

UNITED STATES, : 

: 

Defendant, : 

: 

and : 

: 

ARCELORMITTAL USA LLC, NUCOR CORP., : 

and SSAB ENTERPRISES LLC, : 

: 

Defendant-Intervenors. : 

__________________________________________: 

JUDGMENT 

Before the court is the United States Department of Commerce’s (“Commerce”) remand 

redetermination (“Remand Results”), ECF No. 110, issued pursuant to the court’s order in China 

Steel Corp. v. United States, 43 CIT __, Slip Op. 19-106 (Aug. 13, 2019) (“China Steel”). No party 

contests the Remand Results. See Letter from China Steel Corp., Response to Court’s Request for 

Comments on Remand Results, ECF No. 112 (“China Steel Corporation does not intend to 

comment on the final remand determination.”). 

In China Steel, the court directed Commerce to recalculate its difference-in-merchandise 

(DIFMER) adjustment to normal value without using data that had been affected by Commerce’s 

use of adverse inferences: 

Commerce shall compute the DIFMER adjustment to normal value using 

information from China Steel’s final COP2 cost database, without the application 

of an adverse inference, and may use facts available in filling in missing or 
Court No. 17-00152 Page 2 

replacing unverifiable necessary information. 

China Steel, 43 CIT at __, Slip. Op. 19-106 at 42. Under protest, Commerce calculated a rate of 

6.23 percent for Plaintiff, in compliance with the court’s order: 

Pursuant to the Court’s order, we calculated a weighted-average margin for China 

Steel without the use of AFA in the DIFMER test. Based on this approach, we 

calculated a dumping margin of 6.73 percent for China Steel. 

Remand Results 10. 

 Upon consideration of the Remand Results, the parties’ submissions, and the papers and 

proceedings had herein, it is hereby 

 ORDERED that the Remand Results are sustained. 

 

 Richard K. Eaton 

 Richard K. Eaton, Judge 

Dated: January 9, 2020 

 New York, New York
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          40,954
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   64,349
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     23,692
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               128,995
<PP&E>                                         916,230
<DEPRECIATION>                                 113,432
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 931,793
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          364,503
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,201
<OTHER-SE>                                     565,089
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   931,793
<SALES>                                        461,549
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               461,549
<CGS>                                          364,450
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  406,061
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               339,766
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,526
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (291,542)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (291,542)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (291,542)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.13)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
(the Exchange Act), and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. §1350), Douglas F. Garn, Chief Executive Officer of Quest Software, Inc. (the Company), and Scott J. Davidson,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best of his or her knowledge:



|1. | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended September 30, 2009, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the
Quarterly Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act, and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

In Witness Whereof, the undersigned have set their hands hereto as of the 9thday of November, 2009.



|                        |  |  |  |                         
|----------------------- |  |  |  | ------------------------
|/s/    Douglas F. Garn  |  |  |  | /s/    Scott J. Davidson
|Douglas F. Garn         |  |  |  | Scott J. Davidson       
|Chief Executive Officer |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer 

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Quest Software, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the
date of the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
#### Wilkerson *vs.*The State of Georgia.

[Jackson, O. J., not presiding, on account of providential cause.]

It is error for the court to cause twelve jurors to be sworn upon their *voire dire*and examined together touching their competency, ordering such as disqualified themselves to stand aside, and putting upon the prisoner each of those pronounced competent, as his name was called. Each juror called should be disposed of and either accepted or rejected before another is presented to the accused ; and more than one cannot be examined on their *voire dire*at one time. 65 *Oa.,*430, 432 ; 60 *Id.,*367; Code, §§4681, 4684.

Judgment reversed.

October 2, 1884.

Hall, Justice,
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NORMAN GERALD DANIELS III,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

STUART SHERMAN, Warden,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 18

- 16262

D.C. No. 1:16

- cv

- 01312

- LJO

- EPG

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Lawrence J. O’ Neill, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 15, 2019 **

Before: TROTT, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Norman Gerald Daniels III appeals pro se from the

district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an

access

- to

- court s claim related to his legal blindness. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291. W e review de novo the district court’s dismissal on the basis of

* 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

JAN 23 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 18

- 16262

claim preclusion

. Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp , 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002). We

affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Daniels’s action as barred by the

doctrine of claim preclusion because Daniels alleged nearly identical claims

against defendant, or his privy, in a prior federal action in which there was a final

judgment on the merits. See id. (elements of claim preclusion); Tahoe

- Sierra Pres.

Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg ’ l Planning Agency , 322 F.3d 1064, 1081 (9th Cir.

2003) (“Even when the parties are not identical, privity may exist if there is

substantial identity between parties, that is, when there is sufficient commonality

of interest.” (citation and internal quotation marks om itted)).

AFFIRMED.
#### In re: Franklin C. REAVES, Reverend, PhD, Petitioner.

No. 10-2267.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 31, 2011.

Decided: April 4, 2011.

Franklin C. Reaves, Petitioner Pro Se.

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Franklin C. Reaves petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking an order requiring the district court to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We conclude that Reaves is not entitled to mandamus relief.

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in extraordinary circumstances. *Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court,*426 U.S. 394, 402, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976); *United States v. Moussaoui,*333 F.3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir.2003). Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. *In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n,*860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir.1988).

Reaves asserts various violations of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by the *304district court, all stemming from his belief that pretrial matters were improperly assigned to the magistrate judge. Mandamus, however, may not be used as a substitute for appeal. *In re Lockheed Martin Corp.,*508 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir.2007). As the review of any alleged errors by the district court may be had through the normal appellate process, the relief sought by Reaves is not available by way of mandamus.

Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Meridian
Sports Incorporated Consolidated Balance Sheet and Statement of Operations and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000926474
<NAME> MERIDIAN SPORTS INCORPORATED
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           1,968
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,045
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (2,578)
<INVENTORY>                                     15,537
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                29,124
<PP&E>                                          22,755
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (9,512)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  44,225
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           29,639
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            80
<OTHER-SE>                                     (7,034)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    44,225
<SALES>                                        102,349
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               102,349
<CGS>                                           97,678
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  130,420
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   116
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,499
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (12,836)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,958
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (19,794)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  1,332
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (21,126)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.64)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.64)




</TABLE>