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
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET, CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-K FOR THE
PERIOD ENDING JUNE 30, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THE NOTES THERETO.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         571,117
<SECURITIES>                                   117,026
<RECEIVABLES>                                  597,790
<ALLOWANCES>                                    15,407
<INVENTORY>                                    195,181
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,847,033
<PP&E>                                         980,819
<DEPRECIATION>                                 600,051
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,788,257
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          977,053
<BONDS>                                        354,971
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     16,998
<COMMON>                                           171
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,407,030
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,788,257
<SALES>                                      2,090,194
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,748,957
<CGS>                                        1,202,562
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,603,250
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               365,239
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   369
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              22,562
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                125,721
<INCOME-TAX>                                    71,892
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             53,829
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    53,829
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .28
<FN>
</FN>


</TABLE>
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, March 02, 2016. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, March 02, 2016 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A16I0137. ANTOINE BERNARD RICHARDS v. THE STATE.
Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of State Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 15T12744
(First Circuit — Hamilton Co., O., Circuit Court

Jan. Term, 1898.)

Before Marvin, (of the Eighth Circuit); Wilson, (of the Second Circuit), and Parker, (of the Sixth Circuit), JJ.

(Sitting in Hamilton County Circuit Court.)

#### BROWNE, ASSIGNEE, v. WALLACE, ASSIGNEE, et al. (Two Cases.)

*Construction of section*640S, *R. S., as to appeals by trustees to common pleas court, and section 6407, R. S., as to whether an order confirming a sale is a final order —*

Parker, J.

1. An order confirming a sale, where there is no adjudication as to priorities, but merely a finding that the proceedings .for the sale were regular and in accordance with the order for sale, is not a final order,and an appeal from it will not lie.

*125*Follett & Kelley,*and *F. W. Browne,*for Plaintiff in Error.

*Wilby*& *Wald,*contra.

2. The recital in the journal entry of the court of insolvency that notice of appeal was given by a trustee who wished to appeal in his trust capacity and therefore is not obliged to give bond, is not a compliance with Revised Statutes 6408 requiring that notice of appeal must be given in writing, inasmuch as it does not appear affirmatively that the notice referred to in the journal entry was in writing. In this holding the court follows the decision in Willis, Adm’r. v. Willis, a case from Washington C. H., decided by the circuit court for the second circuit and affirmed in the supreme court without report, 57 Ohio St., p. 668, where the question presented here was the only question made.

3. In the case at bar another journal entry contained the recital what an oral notice of appeal was given. The court ^old that this, on its face, was not a compliance with the statute.

Both judgments of common pleas in dismissing appeals from the court of insolvency, affirmed.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher Reginald HINES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-7133.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 16, 2010.

Decided: Dec. 28, 2010.

Christopher Reginald Hines, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Reginald Hines seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge *699issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); *Reid v. Angelone,*369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir.2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hines has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Damon L. DOCK, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-7487.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 14, 2016.

Decided: Jan. 20, 2016.

Damon L. Dock, Jr., Appellant Pro Se, Jennifer R. Bockhorst, Zachary T. Lee, Assistant United States Attorneys, Abing-don, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Damon L. Dock, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Dock has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
EXHIBIT 32(B)

                            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 Quaterly Report of Murray United Development
Corp. on Form 10-QSB for the period ending October 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Anthony Campo,
Chairman of the Board and Chief Financial and Accounting 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:


1.       The Report 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.


Date:  December 19, 2003           /s/  Anthony Campo
                                   ----------------------

                                   ANTHONY CAMPO,
                                   Chairman of the Board and Chief Financial and
                                   Accounting Officer
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 1, 2016

t0525 

# Order

Clerk June 1, 2016

152660

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 152660

COA: 322857

Tuscola CC: 13

- 012672

- FH

TAMMY LOUISE HARBIN,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 4, 2015

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Exhibit 99.2


                   MERIDIAN HEALTHCARE GROWTH AND INCOME FUND
                               LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002







In connection with the filing of Meridian Healthcare Growth and Income Fund
Limited Partnership's (the "Fund") Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period
ending June 30, 2002 with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, George V. Hager, Jr., the Chief Financial Officer of
Meridian Healthcare Investments, Inc., Development General Partner of the Fund,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (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 Fund.



By: ____________________

George V. Hager, Jr.
Chief Financial Officer
Meridian Healthcare Investments, Inc.
Development General Partner
August 6, 2002
**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**

|   | (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. |

|   |            |                                                                                                                                                   |
|--------|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | By:   | /s/ D.                JONATHAN MERRIMAN**D.                Jonathan Merriman****Chairman                and Chief Executive Officer**   |

|   | By:   | /s/ JOHN                D. HIESTAND**John                D. Hiestand****Chief                Financial Officer**  |
|--------|-----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
zbh-ex101_12.htm



EXHIBIT 10.1

Amendment to the

Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. Executive Severance Plan

 

Whereas, Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) established and maintains the Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. Executive Severance Plan (the “Plan”), as effective May 14, 2018; and

 

Whereas, the Plan delegates the Compensation and Management Development Committee (the “Compensation Committee”) with the authority to amend the Plan; and

 

Whereas, the Compensation Committee now wishes to amend the Plan to revise the eligibility provisions.

 

Now therefore, effective on and after January 1, 2022, the section of the Plan entitled “Eligibility to Participate in the Plan” is hereby amended to add the following sentence to the end thereof:

 

Notwithstanding anything in this Plan to the contrary, if you are a participant in the ZimVie Inc. Executive Severance Plan or otherwise an employee of Zimmer Biomet Spine, Inc. or any of its subsidiaries, you are not eligible to participate in or receive benefits under this Plan.

 

Except as amended herein, the Plan remains in full force and effect.

 

 

Certified as Final:

 


	
By:
	
/s/ Suketu Upadhyay

	
 
	
Suketu Upadhyay

	
 
	
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer




 


	
By:
	
/s/ Lori Winkler

	
 
	
Lori Winkler

	
 
	
Senior Vice President and Chief Human Resources Officer
2014-0977.

#### Stewart v. [Elliott].

Portage App. No. 2013-P-0009, 2014-Ohio-1872. This cause is pending before the court as a jurisdictional appeal.

Upon consideration of the motion for admission pro hac vice of Michael Artz, it is ordered by the court that the motion is granted. Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. XII(4), counsel shall file a notice of permission to appear pro hac vice with the Supreme Court’s Office of Attorney Services within 30 days of the date of this entry.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 (the "Report") of ARC
Wireless Solutions, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended March 31, 2004,
each of the undersigned Randall P. Marx, the Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, and Monty R. Lamirato, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
hereby certifies 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 the
undersigneds'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 results of operations of the
Company.



Dated:  May 14, 2004                        /s/ Randall P. Marx
                                            -------------------
                                            Randall P. Marx
                                            Chief Executive Officer


Dated:  May 14, 2004                        /s/ Monty R. Lamirato
                                            ---------------------
                                            Monty R. Lamirato
                                            Chief Financial Officer




                                       19
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 18-2332

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Manuel Fujarte

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa - Waterloo

 ____________

 Submitted: June 26, 2019

Filed: July 1, 2019

[Unpublished]

____________

Before ERICKSON, BOWMAN, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Manuel Fujarte directly appeals the sentence the district court imposed after he

pleaded guilty to a drug offense. Before sentencing, Fujarte requested a downward

departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.23 based on time he spent in custody serving two

state sentences. At sentencing, the district court stated that it would grant Fujarte

“credit” for the time. The court’s comments, as well as the judgment, indicated that
the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) was ordered to provide the credit, pursuant to section

§ 5K2.23. Fujarte did not object. In this court, he argues that the district court erred

in ordering the BOP to grant him credit for the time rather than adjusting the length

of his federal sentence.

Because Fujarte did not raise this challenge below, we review for plain error. 

See United States v. Franklin, 695 F.3d 753, 757 (8th Cir. 2012). Section 5K2.23

provides that a departure may be appropriate if the defendant has completed a prison

term for another offense that is relevant conduct to the instant offense of conviction,

referencing U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(b). See U.S.S.G. §§ 5K2.23, 5G1.3(b)(1) (providing

that under certain circumstances district court shall adjust federalsentence to account

for time served on undischarged prison term). We agree with Fujarte that in granting

relief under section 5K2.23, a district court must adjust the length of the defendant’s

sentence rather than order the BOP to grant credit for time served. See In re U.S.

Bureau of Prisons, 918 F.3d 431, 439 (5th Cir. 2019) (if sentencing court determines

BOP will not credit defendant’s prior time served, court can reduce defendant’s

sentence under § 5G1.3(b) or § 5K2.23, but court cannot simply order BOP to award

credit); cf. United States v. Woods, 717 F.3d 654, 658 (8th Cir. 2013) (stating that

because BOP is responsible for computing sentencing credit, § 5G1.3(b) does not

authorize a district court to grant credit for time served; instead, under specific

circumstances, court is instructed to “adjust” defendant’s sentence to account for

undischarged prison terms). Because the district court intended to account for

Fujarte’s time served but failed to adjust his sentence, the court plainly erred. We

further conclude that the error was prejudicial, asthe government indicatesin its brief

that the BOP will be unable to grant the credit that the district court intended for

Fujarte to receive. See Franklin, 695 F.3d at 757 (discussing showing of prejudice

required when defendant seeks plain-error review in sentencing context). 

Accordingly, we remand for resentencing.

______________________________

-2-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  507,309
<ALLOWANCES>                                   186,853
<INVENTORY>                                    783,785
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,264,256
<PP&E>                                       3,887,076
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,165,674
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,162,500
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,115,502
<BONDS>                                      1,660,410
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       270,387
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,162,500
<SALES>                                      2,666,308
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,666,308
<CGS>                                        2,064,302
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  667,326
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                33,309
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             112,188
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (114,109)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (144,109)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (144,109)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>