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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          86,047
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,236
<ALLOWANCES>                                    10,182
<INVENTORY>                                      3,829
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               115,017
<PP&E>                                         734,091
<DEPRECIATION>                                 192,655
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,207,765
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          124,804
<BONDS>                                      1,038,386
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            25
<OTHER-SE>                                      38,559
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,207,765
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               512,699
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  373,166
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                50,121
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,126
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              48,773
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 41,304
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             41,304
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    41,304
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
| (a)   | Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; |
|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (b)   | Not applicable |
|-----------------|----------------|

| (c)   | Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and |
|-----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (d)   | Disclosed in the report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.; and |
|-----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (a)   | All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (b)   | Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. |
|-----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6793

GEORGE JAMES HUBBARD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

P. L. HUFFMAN; DR. PALAVARAPU; L. STILTNER;

E. E. WHITE, Lieutenant; R. E. LILLY, Officer;

DENNIS M. SPRAGUE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.

(CA-94-1090-R)

Submitted: January 9, 1997 Decided: January 21, 1997

Before HALL and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George James Hubbard, Appellant Pro Se. Lance Bradford Leggitt,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia;

Peter Duane Vieth, WOOTEN & HART, P.C., Roanoke, Virginia, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record

and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court.

Hubbard v. Huffman, No. CA-94-1090-R (W.D. Va. Apr. 18, 1996). 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.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32.1 Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code  I, Edward Suydam, the Chief Executive Officer of Nano Mask, Inc. (Nano Mask), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (i) the accompanying Form 10-Q of Nano Mask for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 (the Form 10-Q) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (ii) the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Nano Mask.  /s/ Edward Suydam Edward Suydam Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) Nano Mask, Inc.  August 1, 2011
Exhibit 32.1  SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION  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 Emergency Filtration Products, Inc. (the ACompany@) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the AReport@), I, Douglas K. Beplate, Principal 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:  (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/ Douglas K. Beplate Douglas K. Beplate, Principal Executive Officer  Date: November 14, 2006   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Fernando SILVERIO-PANIAGUA, also known as Fernando Silverio, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-40655

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 19, 2011.

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

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Molly Estelle Odom, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Fernando Silverio-Paniagua 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). Silverio-Paniagua has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected 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 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 31.1
 Certification of Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Mad Catz Interactive, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us
by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is
being prepared;b)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures
and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; andc)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control
over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 Date: November 14, 2007
    /s/ Darren RichardsonDarren Richardson, President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer
#### SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA v. DEBORAH A., Parent and Natural Guardian of C.C., A Minor, Appellant.

No. 09-2190.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) on Monday, March 21, 2011.

Opinion Filed: April 6, 2011.

Miles H. Shore, Esq., School District of Philadelphia, Office of General Counsel, Philadelphia, PA, for School District of Philadelphia.

Gabrielle C. Serení, Esq., McAndrews Law Offices, Berwyn, PA, for Appellant.

Before: FUENTES, SMITH, and VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

FUENTES, Circuit Judge:

In this special education civil rights case, the parent Deborah A. filed suit against the School District of Philadelphia on behalf of her daughter Candiss C., alleging that the School District failed to offer Can-diss C. a free appropriate education in compliance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1400*et seq.*Following a series of administrative and state court proceedings, Deborah A.’s various cases were consolidated in the District Court. Thereafter, the District Court considered several cross motions, including a motion for remand to the Pennsylvania Special Education Administrative Process for consideration of Deborah A.’s compensatory education claims existing prior to July 1, 2005.

After hearing the parties on the motions, the District Court concluded that the claims regarding events that occurred before July 27, 2005 were barred by IDEA’S two-year statute of limitations. On appeal, the parties agree that our recent decision in *Steven I. v. Central Bucks Sch. Dist.*618 F.3d 411 (3d Cir.2010), “decided] the same legal issue presented here” — that is, the applicability to Deborah A.’s claims of the shortened statute of limitations established in the IDEA as amended in 2004— and required the denial of her motion. (App’t Br. 2) In light of this concession, we will affirm the decision of the District Court for substantially the reasons given in that decision.
Exhibit 21

POLYMER GROUP, INC.    LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

The following comprises a list of the subsidiaries of the Company as of January 2, 2010:

Albuma S.A.S.
Bonlam Holdings B.V.
Bonlam S.A. de C.V.
Chicopee Asia, Limited
Chicopee Holdings B.V.
Chicopee Holdings C.V.
Chicopee, Inc.
DIFCO Performance Fabrics Inc.
Dominion Nonwovens Sudamerica, S.A.
Dominion Textile (USA), L.L.C.
Dominion Textile Mauritius Inc.
Dominion Textile Inc.
DT Acquisition Inc.
Fabrene, L.L.C.
Fabrene, Inc.
Geca-Tapes B.V.
Geca-Tapes (s) Pte. Ltd.
Nanhai Nanxin Non-Woven Co., Ltd.
Nordlys S.A.S.
PGI Argentina S.A.
PGI Columbia Ltda.
PGI Europe, Inc.
PGI Holdings B.V.
PGI Neunkirchen GmbH
PGI Non-woven (Foshan) Co., Ltd.
PGI Nonwovens Limited
PGI Nonwovens (China) Co., Ltd.
PGI Nonwovens B.V.
PGI Nonwovens (Mauritius)
PGI Nonwovens Switzerland Sarl
PGI Polymer, Inc.
PGI Spain S.L.
Pristine Brands Corporation

---



QuickLinks
#### Zoya Bitici et al., Appellants, v New York City Transit Authority et al., Respondents.

[666 NYS2d 188]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered February 19, 1997, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint for failure to meet the “serious injury” threshold required by Insurance Law § 5102 (d), unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion denied, and the complaint reinstated.

Plaintiff Zoya Bitici was injured when the car she was driving was struck by a city bus driven by defendant Mencher. The sole reason stated in the court’s order granting summary judgment was that “it was not until 2V2 years after the accident that any problem was found with plaintiff medically.” Our review of the record on the summary judgment motion reveals that it was error to grant the motion. There was conflicting, competent medical evidence regarding the nature and extent of plaintiff’s injuries, thus raising a question of fact that cannot be resolved on summary judgment *(see, e.g., Cassagnol v Williamsburg Plaza Taxi,*234 AD2d 208). It is within the province of the fact finder, not the summary judgment court, to determine the weight to be given to the examination and findings of plaintiff’s doctor *(supra).*

With respect to the nature of the medical evidence submitted by plaintiff, her claims do not consist of her subjective complaints alone or a doctor’s conclusory or speculative statements, either of which would be insufficient to demonstrate a *prima facie*case of serious injury to defeat defendants’ motion *(Velez v Cohan,*203 AD2d 156, 157; *Braham v U-Haul Co.,*195 AD2d 277); her submissions include the findings made by her doctor based on an examination, x-ray and detailed observations *(Parker v Defontaine-Stratton,*231 AD2d 412; *Cesar v Felix,*181 AD2d 852, 853). Moreover, a doctor’s finding of range *158of motion limitations comparable to plaintiffs has been held to meet the threshold test of serious injury and withstand summary judgment *(see, e.g., Cassagnol v Williamsburg Plaza Taxi,*supra; *Parker v Defontaine-Stratton,*supra; *see also, Lopez v Senatore,*65 NY2d 1017, 1020). Accordingly, plaintiff satisfied her burden in opposing summary judgment by establishing the requisite *prima facie*case of serious physical injury, and it was error to grant summary judgment. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Wallach, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.
#### Maria Estella LOPEZ, a.k.a. Elda Hernandez, a.k.a. Maria Lopez, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 09-73119.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 14, 2011.

Sharon A. Healey, Law Office of Sharon A. Healey, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.

*709Jesse Lloyd Busen, Emily Anne Rad-ford, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office Of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Maria Estella Lopez, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, *Cerezo v. Mukasey,*512 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir.2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s determination of the governing statutes and regulations, *Simeonov v. Ashcroft,*371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir.2004). We review for substantial evidence factual findings. *Zehatye v. Gonzales,*453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir.2006). We deny the petition for review.

In her opening brief, Lopez concedes the agency’s dispositive determination that her asylum claim was untimely and fails to challenge the agency’s denial of her CAT claim. *See Ghahremani v. Gonzales,*498 F.3d 993, 997-8 (9th Cir.2007) (issues not raised and argued in the opening brief are deemed waived).

We reject Lopez’s claim that she is eligible for withholding of removal based on her fear of gang violence or based on general conditions of crime in Honduras. *See Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey,*542 F.3d 738, 745-46 (9th Cir.2008) (rejecting as a particular social group “young men in El Salvador resisting gang violence”); *see also Zetino v. Holder,*622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir.2010) (a general fear of gang violence does not establish membership in a protected social group).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Lopez’s claim that she faces persecution based on membership in a social group of “family members of persons killed by Honduran gangs,” because she did not argue this as a distinct social group to the IJ or the BIA. *See Brezilien v. Holder,*569 F.3d 403, 412 (9th Cir.2009) (the court lacks jurisdiction to consider claims not exhausted administratively).

Accordingly, because Lopez failed to demonstrate that she was persecuted or fears persecution on account of a protected ground, we deny the petition as to her withholding of removal claim. *See Barrios v. Holder,*581 F.3d 849, 856 (9th Cir.2009).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

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