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

<ARTICLE>                                  5
       
<S>                                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                           12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                     JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                       DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                              12,838,000
<SECURITIES>                                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          672,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                                 0
<INVENTORY>                                                  0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    13,636,000
<PP&E>                                              14,171,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       5,791,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      21,845,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                1,853,000
<BONDS>                                              8,292,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                        0
<PREFERRED>                                                  0
<COMMON>                                                     0
<OTHER-SE>                                          11,700,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        21,845,000
<SALES>                                                      0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     4,445,000
<CGS>                                                        0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        2,984,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                             0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     859,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       (423,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                          0
<DISCONTINUED>                                         300,000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                              0
<CHANGES>                                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                          (123,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                               (2)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                0
        

</TABLE>
{"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":"Applicants – January 23, 2015","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"YK6c1VND4P\"><a href=\"\/oti\/applicants-january-23-2015\/\">Applicants – January 23, 2015<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/oti\/applicants-january-23-2015\/embed\/#?secret=YK6c1VND4P\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Applicants – January 23, 2015” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"YK6c1VND4P\" 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"}
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3261 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3261

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 12, 2021

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq 
                              Resolution.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST 
              IRAQ RESOLUTION.

    The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution 
(Public Law 102-1; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) is hereby repealed.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 29, 2021.

            Attest:

                                             CHERYL L. JOHNSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Exhibit 32.2

                                  Certification
                   Certification of Periodic Financial Report
                       Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, the  undersigned  officer of Obsidian  Enterprises,
Inc. (the  "Company")  certifies  that the Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of the
Company  for  the  quarter  ended  July  31,  2003,   fully  complies  with  the
requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934
and the information contained in that Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: September 15, 2003        /s/ Rick D. Snow
                                ----------------
                                Rick D. Snow
                                Executive Vice President/Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6778
MARIO HOWARD LLOYD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GERALDO MALDONADO, Warden; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. C. Weston Houck, Senior District Judge. (CA-02-1604-2-12) Submitted: July 15, 2004 Decided: July 23, 2004 Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mario Howard Lloyd, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Mario Howard Lloyd, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Lloyd v. Maldonado , No. CA-02-1604-2-12 (D.S.C. Apr. 8, 2004). 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.

DISMISSED
**Exhibit
      23.1**





**Consent
      of Burr, Pilger & Mayer LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting
      Firm**








We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
      Forms S-8 (No. 33-75268 pertaining to the 1994 Stock Option Plan and 1994 Stock
      Purchase Plan, No. 33-80662 pertaining to the 1994 Stock Option Plan, No.
      33-93394 pertaining to the 1994 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, No. 333-29801
      pertaining to the 1994 Stock Option Plan, No. 333-60057 pertaining to the 1994
      Stock Option Plan, No. 333-79789 pertaining to the 1994 Stock Option Plan,
      No.
      333-43504 pertaining to the 1994 Stock Option Plan and 1994 Stock Purchase
      Plan,
      No. 333-72098 pertaining to the 1994 Stock Option Plan and No. 333-117193 and
      No. 333-126083 pertaining to the 1994 Stock Option Plan and 1994 Stock Purchase
      Plan) and the Registration Statements on Forms S-3 (No. 333-38266, No.
      333-54912, No. 333-116973, No. 333-126084, No. 333-130248 and No. 333-131744)
      of
      InSite Vision Incorporated of our report dated February 28, 2006, with respect
      to the consolidated financial statements of InSite Vision Incorporated included
      in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31,
      2005.








/s/
      Burr,
      Pilger & Mayer LLP


Palo
      Alto, California


March
      31,
      2006
75 A.3d 484

#### Richard D. MICKMAN, Respondent v. Elaine MICKMAN, Petitioner.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Sept. 24, 2013.

*187
      *ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 24th day of September, 2013, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issues set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to the remaining issues. The issues are:

> (1) Whether the Superior Court has decided a question of first impression with substantial public importance, specifically whether a child support obligor can receive a support credit, used to offset against the future support owed to his minor children when this “credit” represents college expenses paid by [respondent] for adult children[.]

> (2) Whether this Court should grant this [petition to resolve the conflict between the decision of the Superior Court in the instant matter since it conflicts with the decision rendered by the Middle District of the Superior Court in *Horst v. Horst,*406 Pa.Super. 188, 593 A.2d 1299 (1991)[.]
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

November 19, 2007

Before 

Hon. KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge

Hon. DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge

Hon. ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

No. 06-3174

RYAN L. BELCHER and DARAINA Appeal from the United States 

GLEASON, District Court for the Northern

District of Indiana, Fort Wayne 

 Plaintiffs-Appellants, Division.

 v. No. 05 C 101

VAUGHN NORTON and TOWN Theresa L. Springmann, Judge.

OF ORLAND, 

Defendants-Appellees.

O R D E R

The opinion of this court issued on August 15, 2007, is amended, as follows: 

At slip opinion page 21, line 16 (before Section “C.”), after the word “analysis.” add:

We note that, in establishing their substantive due process claim, the plaintiffs

will have to overcome two hurdles, neither of which was addressed in detail by

the parties in their briefing before this court. First, this court has held that

where “actions fall[] clearly within the ambit of those activities regulated by

the Fourth Amendment,” the Fourth Amendment provides the appropriate

standard for evaluating the claim, and “there [i]s no need for the district court

to further analyze the case under the strictures of the Fourteenth

Amendment.” Kernats v. O’Sullivan, 35 F.3d 1171, 1182 (7th Cir. 1994)
No. 06-3174 Page 2

(citing Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266 (1994), and Graham v. Connor, 490

U.S. 386 (1989)). Thus, in order to establish a substantive due process

violation, the plaintiffs must show that the deputy’s allegedly extortionate

actions were not part and parcel of a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth

Amendment. Additionally, apart from the Fourth Amendment issue, the

plaintiffs must establish that the officer’s actions impinged a fundamental

liberty interest as set forth in Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997). 

Because we neither have the benefit of a uniform version of the facts nor of

thorough briefing on these issues, we express no opinion regarding whether,

on remand, the plaintiffs will be able to distinguish sufficiently their claims

from others covered by our Fourth Amendment case law or from those which

do not involve a fundamental liberty interest. 

Further, upon consideration of the petition for rehearing en banc filed by

Defendants-Appellees on August 29, 2007, no judge in active service has requested a

vote thereon and the judges on the original panel have voted to deny the petition. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that the petition for rehearing en banc is hereby DENIED.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov","title":"Resolving Labor-Management Disputes - Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"wgdlbwwrgA\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/services\/resolving-labor-management-disputes\/\">Resolving Labor-Management Disputes<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/services\/resolving-labor-management-disputes\/embed\/#?secret=wgdlbwwrgA\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Resolving Labor-Management Disputes” — Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service\" data-secret=\"wgdlbwwrgA\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/* <![CDATA[ *\/\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n\/* ]]> *\/\n<\/script>\n"}
<TABLE> <S> <C>

                                     
                                     
                                     
                                            
<ARTICLE>                                  5
                           
<S>                          <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                Feb-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                     Feb-28-1998
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       12-MOS
<CASH>                                19,228
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                         33,537
<ALLOWANCES>                               0
<INVENTORY>                          149,078
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     665,570
<PP&E>                               173,331
<DEPRECIATION>                       161,505
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       694,989
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                141,511
<BONDS>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                              12,300
<OTHER-SE>                           541,178
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         694,989
<SALES>                            1,016,392
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   1,016,392
<CGS>                                131,087
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        537,026
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      259,813
<INCOME-TAX>                          25,685
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  234,128
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                         234,128
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           0.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                           0.16
        


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-2054
MARTIN G. BAYERLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NEIL S. BUCKLEW; RICHARD ADAMS; CATHY M. ARMSTRONG; KAY GOODWIN; DAVID C. HARDESTY, JR.; JOHN R. HOBLITZELL; JOHN G. HOPKINS, V; LUCIA B. JAMES; CHARLES W. MANNING; HENRY R. MAROCKIE; PAUL R. MARTINELLI; JON A. MCBRIDE; ROBERT A. MCMILLAN; A. MICHAEL PERRY; JOSEPH W. POWELL; C. ALLAN ROBERTS; HENRY G. TAYLOR; DAVID G. TODD; CLIFFORD M. TRUMP, Tru stees, Individually; ROBERT M. BASTRESS; THOMAS CADY; LISA EICH HORN; ROBERT G. LATHROP; MAJORIE MCDIARMID, Committee Members, Individually, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. William M. Kidd, Senior District Judge. (CA-94-144) Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: March 29, 1996 Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.2 Martin G. Bayerle, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Randolph Brooks, FURBEE, AMOS, WEBB & CRITCHFIELD, Fairmont, West Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district cou rt's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) 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. Bayerle v. Bucklew , No. CA-94-144 (N.D.W. Va. Apr. 28, 1995). 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
117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3419 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 66 Meserole Avenue in Brooklyn, New York, 

as the ‘‘Joseph R. Lentol 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 3419 EH

1 SECTION 1. JOSEPH R. LENTOL POST OFFICE. 

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

3 Postal Service located at 66 Meserole Avenue in Brooklyn, 

4 New York, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Joseph 

5 R. Lentol 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 ‘‘Joseph R. Lentol Post 

10 Office’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives October 20, 

2021. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3419 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostPost Office’’. Brooklyn, New York, as the ‘‘Joseph R. Lentol al Service located at 66 Meserole Avenue in
3 

### £o.&^ U308 CcrPftoL Slirrk/i aVjaiiW &xXson. ucWM 

### X uWi UfaL -b ostc ^.i. f*/Y of -rkz 0^ -rL Cfiutr-H-^^ /Weal5 deS&hAa o± **/ H.C/1.07. 7L rix>Ps^CiV tr^J ?P Z LuP &r*L~ uXw\c Cod) &/L "V ( T ^o Ab+ nW> 7/* //*>7 o^i/Y dU* £W«-J 

### ita Giu*e <\Wbercr. Uv^ S)3X 5£5d8>v/ S83&7.*

iSzs f/n -766 

### 77754 4~l*'(*

GOUBTOFCRIMINALAPPEALS APR 20 2015 AbsSAcosta,Clerk
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title
18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Pilgrims Pride Corporation (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 26, 2010 (the Form 10-K) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                        |  |                            
|----------------------- |  | ---------------------------
|Date: February 11, 2011 |  | /s/ Gary D. Tucker         
|                        |  | Gary D. Tucker             
|                        |  | Principal Financial Officer
**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Air Brook Airport Express, Inc. (the
      “Company”) on form 10K-SB for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2006 as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date of this Certification
      (the “Report”), I, Donald M. Petroski, the 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 complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
                the
                Securities and 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.




January
      26, 2005


/Donald
      M. Petroski


DONALD
      M.
      PETROSKI,


Chief
      Executive Officer, President,


Chief
      Financial Officer and Director