alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Remarks of FMC Commissioner Khouri on FMC Study of U.S. Inland Containerized Cargo Moving Through Canadian and Mexican Seaports","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"gCAFxj789D\"><a href=\"\/remarks-of-fmc-commissioner-khouri-on-fmc-study-of-u-s-inland-containerized-cargo-moving-through-canadian-and-mexican-seaports\/\">Remarks of FMC Commissioner Khouri on FMC Study of U.S. Inland Containerized Cargo Moving Through Canadian and Mexican Seaports<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/remarks-of-fmc-commissioner-khouri-on-fmc-study-of-u-s-inland-containerized-cargo-moving-through-canadian-and-mexican-seaports\/embed\/#?secret=gCAFxj789D\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Remarks of FMC Commissioner Khouri on FMC Study of U.S. Inland Containerized Cargo Moving Through Canadian and Mexican Seaports” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"gCAFxj789D\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
#### AYERS v. COON.

No. 4092.

Opinion Filed February 23, 1915.

(146 Pac. 716.)

£-'PiEAL AND ERROR — Excessive Recovery — Decision. When plaintiff in a judgment offers in this court to remit the amount he is not legally entitled to recover, and this court can separate and determine the items which he was lawfully entitled to recover from the balance of the judgment, the judgment appealed from will be modified and affirmed.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

*Error from District Court, Muskogee County; B. P. De QraffenrieáJudge.*

Action by Elmer Co.on against Moses Ayers. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.

Modified and affirmed.

*•S. M. Rutherford,*and *James W. Cosgrove,*for plaintiff in error.

*Bailey & Wymd,*for defendant in error.

HARDY, J.

On January 26, 1915, an opinion was filed herein, reversing the case for the reasons stated in said opinion. In the opinion it was held that the item of $100 for attorney’s fees, and $25 for loss of time and money in defending suit, were proper elements of recovery, holding that the item of $2,500 for loss of building, and $175 for money contracted and paid for work in its removal, were not proper elements of recovery. Upon handing down this opinion on February 6, 1915, defendant in error files his petition for rehearing and offers to remit all claims for damages, other than the item of $100 for attorney's *707fees and $25 for expenses and loss of time, and prays that upon rehearing the judgment appealed from be modified and affirmed.

The verdict of the jury fixed the amount of the attorney’s fees at $100, and there is evidence reasonably tending to support this finding; and it is alleged in the petition for rehearing, and not controverted, that the evidence is uncontradicted as to the item of $25 for expenses and loss of time. TJpon the offer of defendant in error to remit amounts recovered in-excess of this, we are of the opinion that the order reversing this cause should be set aside and the judgment appealed from be modified and affirmed. *Moore v. Calvert*et al., 8 Okla. 358, 58 Pac. 627; *Board of County Commissioners v. Smith,*18 Okla. 132, 89 Pac. 1121; *Lee v. Haizlip,*22 Okla. 393, 99 Pac. 806, 1135; *F. & M. Ins. Co., v. Cuff,*29 Okla. 106, 116 Pac. 435, 35 L. R. A. (N. S.) 892; *M., K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Johnson,*30 Okla. 754, 120 Pac. 1100; *St. L. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Goode,*142 Pac. 1185.

It is therefore ordered that the judgment of the trial court be modified and affirmed as to the item of $100 for attorney’s fees and $25 for expenses and loss of time.

All the Justices concur.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Carl Savoy","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/csavoy\/","title":"Ocean Transportation Intermediary License Applicants April 18, 2022","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"yfvqNPVadt\"><a href=\"\/oti\/ocean-transportation-intermediary-license-applicants-april-18-2022\/\">Ocean Transportation Intermediary License Applicants April 18, 2022<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/oti\/ocean-transportation-intermediary-license-applicants-april-18-2022\/embed\/#?secret=yfvqNPVadt\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Ocean Transportation Intermediary License Applicants April 18, 2022” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"yfvqNPVadt\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
                                   EXHIBIT 27

THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF JUNE 30, 2000 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
INCOME  AND  EXPENSE  FOR THE SIX  MONTHS  THEN  ENDED AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

</LEGEND>

<S>                                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                              dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                                   jun-30-2000
<CASH>                                                         4,502,494
<SECURITIES>                                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                  166,138
<ALLOWANCES>                                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                               4,712,739
<PP&E>                                                         364,788
<DEPRECIATION>                                                 (46,294)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                 5,109,643
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                          777,128
<BONDS>                                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                          0
<PREFERRED>                                                    0
<COMMON>                                                       974
<OTHER-SE>                                                     7,087,386
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                   5,109,643
<SALES>                                                        369,277
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                               369,277
<CGS>                                                          1,566,946
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                  1,566,946
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                               111,620
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                (1,260,302)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                            (1,260,302)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                0
<CHANGES>                                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                                   (1,260,302)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                    (0.113)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                  (0.113)



</TABLE>
**Exhibit 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Victor E. Grijalva, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer ofWorldQuest Networks, Inc. certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form10-QSB of WorldQuest Networks, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;and 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements,and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent 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(s) and Iare responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
a. Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared; b. Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,as of the end of the period covered by this report basedon such evaluation; and c. Disclosed in this report any change inthe registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscalquarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and Ihave disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditorsand the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent function):
a. All significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and b. Any fraud, whether or not material,that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting.       Date: May 14, 2004      By: /s/ Victor E. Grijalva      Victor E. Grijalva
#### ZILI JIN, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 13-72745.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*478Submitted Jan. 20, 2016.*

Filed Jan. 27, 2016.

Kevin G. Long, Law Offices of Long and Associates, Monterey Park, CA, for Petitioner.

Andrew Nathan O’Malley, Trial, OIL, U.S. ■ Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM**

Zili Jin, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’(“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. *Mohammed v. Gonzales,*400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.2005). We grant the petition for review and we remand.

The agency abused its discretion in denying Jin’s motion to reopen for failure to file a complaint against his attorney in compliance with the procedural requirements of *Matter of Lozada,*19 I. *&*N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988). Jin’s failure to attend his hearing was due to an exceptional circumstance, because his attorney told him that he did not need to appear. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii). Filing a complaint against the attorney was not necessary because ineffective assistance of counsel is plain on the face of the record, where Jin’s attorney has admitted his errors in a declaration under penalty of perjury. *See Correa-Rivera v. Holder,*706 F.3d 1128, 1133 (9th Cir.2013); *Lo v. Ashcroft,*341 F.3d 934, 937 (9th Cir.2003).

Accordingly, we grant the petition for review, reverse the denial of Jin’s motion to reopen, and remand to the BIA for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

**

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

<TABLE>
                               PRINTWARE, INC.

                                 EXHIBIT 11
                   STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

<CAPTION>  

                                               Twelve months ended
                                            December 31,    December 31,
                                                1996            1995
                                            ___________     ___________ 

<S>                                         <C>             <C>      

PRIMARY EPS:

Weighted average number of
  common shares outstanding                   4,226,504       3,626,437

Common share equivalents
  from assumed exercise of
  options and warrants                           11,125          73,377
                                            ___________     ___________

Total shares                                  4,237,629       3,699,814
                                            ===========     ===========

Net income                                  $ 2,383,404     $ 1,793,425
                                            ___________     ___________
Earnings per share                          $       .56     $       .48
                                            ===========     ===========

FULLY DILUTED:

Weighted average number of
  common shares outstanding                   4,226,504       3,626,437

Common share equivalents
  from assumed exercise of
  options and warrants                           12,676          73,377
                                            ___________     ___________
Total shares                                  4,239,180       3,699,814
                                            ===========      ==========

Net income                                  $ 2,383,404     $ 1,793,425
                                            ___________     ___________
Earnings per share                          $       .56     $       .48
                                            ===========     ===========

<FN>
Note:  Fully diluted net income per share is not reported
       separately because it is substantially the same as
       primary net income per share.
</FN>
</TABLE>
Exhibit 99.2


                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 report of Activeworlds Corp. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Sean
Deson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to the best of my knowledge:

         (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/ Sean Deson
                                            --------------------------
                                            Sean Deson
                                            Chief Financial Officer
                                            Date: May 15, 2003
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Jesus Martinezv. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 15

- 00993

- CR

Trial court case number: 1442094

Trial court: 178th District Court

Appellant’s court

- appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw with a brief concluding that the above

- referenced appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). A lthough counsel’s motion to withdraw states that she sent to the appellant a copy of the brief and appellate record, c ounsel has

not , however, filed a copy of the letter s he wrote, or otherwise certified that s he has written a letter, in accordance with Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), “to (1) notify h [er] client of the motion to withdraw and the accompanying Anders brief, providing him with a copy of each, (2) inform him of his right to file a pro se response and of his right to review the record preparatory to filing that response, [] (3)

inform him of his pro se right to seek discretionary review should the court of appeals declare his appeal frivolous,” and (4) “notify h [er] client that, should he wish to exercise his right to review the appellate record in preparing to file a response to the Anders brief, he should immediately file a motion for pro se access to the appellate record with the applicable court of appeals,” which lette r includes “a form motion . . ., lacking only the appellant’s signature and the date, . . . inform[ing] the appellant that, in order to effectuate his right to review the appellate record pro se , should he choose to invoke it, he must sign and date the mot ion and send it on to the court of appeals within ten days of the date of the letter from appellate counsel.” 436 S.W.3d at 319

– 20.

Accordingly, we order appellant’s appointed counsel, Melissa Martin, to send a letter to the appellant in accordance with Kelly

. 436 S.W.3d at 319

– 20. We further order appellant’s appointed counsel to notify us in writing “that [s] he has (1) informed the appellant of the motion to withdraw and attendant Anders brief, (2) provided the appellant with the requisite copies whil e notifying him of his various pro se rights, and2

(3) supplied him with a form motion for pro se access to the appellate record.” Id. at 320. Because the Clerk of this Court already mailed appellant a form pro se motion for access to the appellate record after counsel filed her motion to withdraw, counsel does not need to send the form motion to her client, but should notify her client as provided above.

Counsel shall send the required Kelly letter to h er client and shall file the required

notice with th e Clerk of this Court within 10 days of the date of this order

.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: / s/ Laura Carter Higley

 Acting individually

Date : July 28, 2016
Exhibit 99.1

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 Huntsman International LLC (the "Company") for the period ended March 31, 2003,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Peter R. Huntsman, 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 to my knowledge:



|/s/PETER R. HUNTSMANPeter R. Huntsman Chief Executive
OfficerMay 14, 2003 |  |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  |  | 

This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed
filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

---

QuickLinks