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

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                              JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         72,941
<SECURITIES>                                   55,099
<RECEIVABLES>                                 145,750
<ALLOWANCES>                                    1,674
<INVENTORY>                                         0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              301,579
<PP&E>                                        117,675
<DEPRECIATION>                                 45,755
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                556,591
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         179,067
<BONDS>                                             0  
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0 
<PREFERRED>                                         0 
<COMMON>                                           62 
<OTHER-SE>                                    196,050       
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  556,591         
<SALES>                                             0          
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              252,061          
<CGS>                                               0          
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 362,483          
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0       
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                7,073      
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              4,202       
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (102,910)       
<INCOME-TAX>                                    1,292
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (104,202)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0      
<CHANGES>                                           0  
<NET-INCOME>                                (104,202) 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (1.70) 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (1.70) 
        
                                  


</TABLE>
Opinion issued May 23, 2024

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-24-00054-CV

———————————

XLS LLC, Appellant

V.

MIDAMERICAN ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the 189th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 2021-69661

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On March 7, 2024, this appeal was stayed pursuant to a notice of suggestion 

of bankruptcy filed by appellant, XLS LLC. See TEX. R. APP. P. 8.2. Appellant has 

now filed a “Notice of Dismissal,”1representing that “[o]n April 4, 2024, [its] 

1 We construe appellant’s “Notice of Dismissal” as a motion to reinstate and dismiss.
2

Chapter 7 Bankruptcy [case] was fully administered and the case closed” by the 

United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas. See TEX.R. APP.

P. 8.3(a). Appellant attached a copy of the April 4, 2024 “Order Closing Case” to 

its motion. 

In its motion, appellant also requested that the Court dismiss its appeal “[a]s 

a result of the resolution of the Chapter 7 Bankruptcy case.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 

42.1(a)(1). No other party has filed a notice of appeal, and no opinion has issued. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(c). Further, although appellant’s motion does not include 

a certificate of conference stating that appellant conferred or made a reasonable 

attempt to confer with appellee, MidAmerican Energy Services, LLC, regarding the 

relief requested in its motion, more than ten days have passed, and no party has 

expressed opposition to appellant’s motion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.1(a)(5), 10.3(a). 

Accordingly, the Court grants appellant’s motion to reinstate and dismiss the 

appeal. The appeal is reinstated on this Court’s active docket and dismissed. See 

TEX. R. APP. P. 8.3(a), 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f). We dismiss all other pending motions as 

moot. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Landau, Countiss, and Guerra.
Exhibit 32.3

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 Annual Report of Health Finance Corporation (the Company) on
Form 10-K (Form 10-K) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, H. Lynn Massingale, M.D., 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:

(1) The Form 10-K 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 Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



By:

/S/    H. LYNN MASSINGALE,
M.D.H. Lynn Massingale, M.D.Chief Executive Officer


Date: March 12, 2007
United States Securities and Exchange Commission EDGAR Filing











Exhibit 10.8







SECOND AMENDMENT TO 2004 INCENTIVE STOCK OPTION PLAN







Broadcaster, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Corporation”), amends its 2004 Incentive Stock Option Plan (the “Plan”) as follows:




Article One, V, A is amended by changing the maximum number of shares of Common Stock to 10,500,000.  In all other respects, the Plan is ratified and confirmed.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HAOTONG WANG,

Petitioner,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 15

- 73560 Agency No. A089

- 891

- 260

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 17, 2022 * *
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. Haotong Wang, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appea ls’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of
removal , and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”)

. We have

* 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

MAY 26 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 15

- 73560

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for su bstantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility
determinations under the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder , 590 F.3d 1034, 1039

- 40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on Wang’s inconsistent testimony regarding which day of the week he reported to the police and whether he was expelled from school , as well as his demeanor during testimony

. See id. at 1048 (a dverse credibility determination reasonable under “the totality of circumstances”) ; Lalayan v. Garland , 4 F.4th 822, 839 (9th Cir. 2021) (the court accords special deference to an IJ’s demeanor findings regarding non - verbal factors)

. Wang ’s explanations d o not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS , 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, in the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Wang’s asylum and withholding
of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft , 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
We do not reach Wang ’s remaining contentions regarding corroboration or the merits of his claims. S ee Simeonov v. Ashcroft , 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach)

. We do not consider the materials Wang references in his opening brief that3 15

- 73560

are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS , 79 F.3d 955, 963

- 64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
Substantial evidence als o supports the agency’s denial of Wang’s CAT claim because it was based on the same testimony found not credible, and the record does not otherwise compel the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquies cence of the government if
returned to China

. See Shrestha , 590 F.3d at 1048

- 49. The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 218 (Tuesday, November 14, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 52764]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-24627]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD


Release of Waybill Data

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Surface Transportation Board (STB) published a document in 
the Federal Register on October 30, 2017, concerning a request from 
Thompson Hine LLP, on behalf of itself, Economists, and L.E. Peabody & 
Associates (WB17-44--10/20/17) for permission to use certain unmasked 
data from the Board's 2006-2016 Carload Waybill Samples. STB is 
correcting the deadline objections to the request are due.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alexander Dusenberry, (202) 245-0319.

Correction

    In the Federal Register of October 30, 2017, in FR 2017-23454, on 
page 50220, in the second column, in the first full paragraph correct 
the first sentence to read as follows:
    The waybill sample contains confidential railroad and shipper data; 
therefore, if any parties object to these requests, they should file 
their objections with the Director of the Board's Office of Economics 
by November 22, 2017.

Jeffrey Herzig,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2017-24627 Filed 11-13-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
104 A.3d 1074

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. YUSEF STEELE (A/K/A STEELE YUSEF, STEELE YUSIF), DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

December 16, 2014.

ORDERED that the petition for certification is granted and the matter is summarily remanded to the sentencing court for a statement of reasons for altering defendant’s sentence, which statement shall be made in the presence of defendant and, if defendant is represented, his counsel. Jurisdiction is not retained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         272,658
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,240
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         104,831
<DEPRECIATION>                                  65,388
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,247,022
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          202,869
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        16,732
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,027,421
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,247,022
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                63,850
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  329,796
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             (265,946)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (265,946)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (265,946)
<DISCONTINUED>                               (107,451)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (373,397)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.22)
        

</TABLE>
Court of Appeals 

First District of Texas 

BILL OF COSTS

No. 01-13-00613-CV

Minh Tran 

v.

Hong Kong Development Corp. a/k/a Hong Kong City Mall

NO. 2009-23479 IN THE 333RD DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID/DUE STATUS PAID BY

SUPP CLK RECORD

E-TXGOV FEE

MT FEE

E-TXGOV FEE

RPT RECORD

E-TXGOV FEE

RPT RECORD

E-TXGOV FEE

E-TXGOV FEE

CLK RECORD

FILING

$34.00

$5.00

$10.00

$5.00

$96.75

$5.00

$417.00

$5.00

$5.00

$566.00

$175.00

06/11/2014

11/11/2013

10/30/2013

10/30/2013

10/23/2013

10/01/2013

09/03/2013

08/22/2013

08/21/2013

08/19/2013

07/23/2013

UNKNOWN

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

PAID

E-PAID

PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

PAID

PAID

APE

APE

APE

APE

ANT

ANT

ANT

ANT

ANT

ANT

ANT

The costs incurred on appeal to the First Court of Appeals Houston, Texas are 

$1,323.75.

Court costs in this case have been taxed in this Court’s judgment
I, Christopher A. Prine, Clerk of the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas, do hereby 

certify that this is a true statement of the costs of appeal in this case.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my 

hand and the seal of the Court of Appeals for the 

First District of Texas, this January 30, 2015.
#### Jose Maria ROBLEDO MEZA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-72251.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 16, 2010.*

Filed Nov. 30, 2010.

Raymond Reza Bolourtchi, Esquire, Cofman & Bolourtchi LLC, Saint Louis, MO, for Petitioner.

Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Brianne Whelan Cohen, Trial, Carol Federighi, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Maria Robledo Meza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo constitutional claims, *Khan v. Holder,*584 F.3d 773, 776 (9th Cir.2009), and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary denial of relief under former section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (repealed 1996). *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii); *Vargas-Hernandez v. Gonzales,*497 F.3d 919, 923 (9th Cir.2007).

Robledo Meza’s contention that the IJ refused to allow Robledo Meza and his witnesses to testify is not supported by the record. *See Lata v. INS,*204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error to establish a due process violation).

Robledo Meza’s substantive due process claim fails because he has not alleged the *137precise terms of any promise made to him by the government. *See Morgan v. Gonzales,*495 F.3d 1084, 1091 (9th Cir.2007).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
EXHIBIT 23 -- CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We  consent  to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements  (Forms  S-8 No. 33-13362, No. 33-41260,  and  No.  33-
60533)  pertaining  to  the Imo Industries Inc.  Employees'  Stock
Savings  Plan,  Registration Statement  (Form  S-8  No.  33-26118)
pertaining  to the Imo Industries Inc. Equity Incentive  Plan  for
Key Employees and the Equity Incentive Plan for Outside Directors,
as  amended on June 23, 1995, Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.
33-60535)  pertaining  to  the  Imo Industries  Inc.  1995  Equity
Incentive Plan for Outside Directors of Imo Industries Inc. of our
report  dated  February 15, 1996, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements and schedule of Imo Industries Inc.  included
in  this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31,
1995.



                                        ERNST & YOUNG LLP
Princeton, New Jersey
March 25, 1996
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-88,764-03

IN RE AKEEM ALAJUWON GREEN, Relator

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

CAUSE NO. 1445761 IN THE 177 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Relator has filed a motion for leave to file an application for a writ of mandamus under this

Court’s original jurisdiction. He contends, among other things, that he filed an application for a writ

of habeas corpus in Harris County and his application has not been properly forwarded to this Court.

Respondent, the District Clerk of Harris County, shall forward Relator’s habeas application

to this Court, respond that Relator has not filed a habeas application in Harris County, or forward

a copy of an order designating issues together with correspondence documenting the date the State

received Relator’s habeas application. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 3(c) and (d); TEX.

R. APP. P. 73.4(b)(5). This motion for leave to file will be held. Respondent shall comply with this

order within thirty days from the date of this order.
2

Filed: 9-9-20

Do not publish
EXHIBIT 32.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CO-PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE 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 October 2, 2004 (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: November 24, 2004
/s/ O.B. GoolsbyO.B. GoolsbyCo-Principal Executive Officer
<PAGE>   1
                                                                EXHIBIT 21.1



1.   Continucare Outpatient Management, Inc.
2.   Continucare In-Patient Management, Inc.
3.   Continucare Medical Care Network, Inc.
4.   Continucare-Aventura, Inc.
5.   Continucare Outpatient Rehabilitation Management, Inc.
6.   Continucare Physician Practice Management, Inc.
7.   Continucare Home Health Services, Inc.
8.   Continucare Primary Care, Inc. (8/22/97)
9.   Continucare Home Health of Broward, Inc. (9/97)
10.  Arthritis and Rheumatic Disease Specialties, Inc.
11.  Weitz and Ritter, Inc.
12.  AARDS, Inc.
13.  Kahn & Riskin, M.D.'s, P.A.
14.  Sunset Harbor Home Health, Inc.
15.  Maxicare, Inc. d/b/a Maxicare of Broward
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 26, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 66430]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-31623]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-39,068]


Elizabeth Webbing, Inc. Central Falls, RI; Notice of Revised 
Determination on Reconsideration

    On November 13, 2001, the Department issued an Affirmative 
Determination Regarding Application on Reconsideration applicable to 
workers and former workers of the subject firm. The notice was 
published in the Federal Register on December 5, 2001 (66 FR 63263).
    On June 25, 2001 the Department initially denied TAA to workers of 
Elizabeth Webbing, Inc., Central Falls, Rhode Island producing nylon 
and polyester webbing because the ``contributed importantly'' group 
eligibility requirement of section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974, as 
amended, was not met.
    On reconsideration, the department surveyed additional customers of 
the subject plant regarding their purchases of nylon and polyester 
webbing during the relevant period. The survey revealed that customers 
increased their imports of nylon and polyester webbing, while 
decreasing their purchases from the subject plant during the relevant 
period.

Conclusion

    After careful review of the additional facts obtained on 
reconsideration, I conclude that increased imports of articles like or 
directly competitive with nylon and polyester webbing, contributed 
importantly to the declines in sales or production and to the total or 
partial separation of workers of Elizabeth Webbing, Inc., Central 
Falls, Rhode Island. In accordance with the provisions of the Act, I 
make the following certification:

    All workers of Elizabeth Webbing, Inc., Central Falls, Rhode 
Island who became totally or partially separated from employment on 
or after April 9, 2000 through two years of this certification, are 
eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under section 223 of the 
Trade Act of 1974.

    Signed in Washington, DC this 12th day of December 2001.
Edward A. Tomchick,
Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 01-31623 Filed 12-21-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M