alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SCHEDULE D 

(Form 1120)

Department of the Treasury 

Internal Revenue Service

Capital Gains and Losses

▶ Attach to Form 1120, 1120-C, 1120-F, 1120-FSC, 1120-H, 1120-IC-DISC, 1120-L, 1120-ND, 1120-PC, 

1120-POL, 1120-REIT, 1120-RIC, 1120-SF, or certain Forms 990-T.

▶ See separate instructions.

OMB No. 1545-0123

2010

Name Employer identification number

Part I Short-Term Capital Gains and Losses—Assets Held One Year or Less

(a) Description of property 

(Example: 100 shares of Z Co.)

(b) Date acquired

(mo., day, yr.)

(c) Date sold 

(mo., day, yr.)

(d) Sales price 

(see instructions)

(e) Cost or other 

basis (see

instructions)

(f) Gain or (loss) 

(Subtract (e) from (d))

1 

2 Short-term capital gain from installment sales from Form 6252, line 26 or 37 . . . . . . . . . . 2 

3 Short-term gain or (loss) from like-kind exchanges from Form 8824 . . . . . . . . . . . 3 

4 Unused capital loss carryover (attach computation) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 ( )

5 Net short-term capital gain or (loss). Combine lines 1 through 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Part II Long-Term Capital Gains and Losses—Assets Held More Than One Year

6 

7 Enter gain from Form 4797, line 7 or 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 

8 Long-term capital gain from installment sales from Form 6252, line 26 or 37 . . . . . . . . . . 8 

9 Long-term gain or (loss) from like-kind exchanges from Form 8824 . . . . . . . . . . . 9 

10 Capital gain distributions (see instructions) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

11 Net long-term capital gain or (loss). Combine lines 6 through 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Part III Summary of Parts I and II

12 Enter excess of net short-term capital gain (line 5) over net long-term capital loss (line 11) . . . . 12 

13 Net capital gain. Enter excess of net long-term capital gain (line 11) over net short-term capital loss 

(line 5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 

14 Add lines 12 and 13. Enter here and on Form 1120, page 1, line 8, or the proper line on other 

returns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 

Note. If losses exceed gains, see Capital losses in the instructions.

For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see the Instructions for Form 1120. Cat. No. 11460M Schedule D (Form 1120) (2010)
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 27 (Thursday, February 8, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 9595]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-3275]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act

    Notice is hereby given that on January 30, 2001, a proposed Consent 
Decree (``Decree'') in United States v. Avco Corporation, Civil No. 
4:CZ01-0198, was lodged with the United States District Court for the 
Middle District of Pennsylvania. The United States filed this action 
pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and 
Liability Act for recovery of costs incurred by the United States in 
responding to releases of hazardous substances at the Avco Lycoming 
Site in Williamsport, Pennsylvania.
    Pursuant to the proposed Consent Decree, Avco Corporation will pay 
$461,500, in reimbursement of past costs, and agrees to pay future 
response costs of the United States, other than oversight costs.
    The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) 
days from the date of this publication comments relating to the Decree. 
Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General of the 
environment and Natural Resources Division, Department of Justice, 
Washington, DC 20530, and should refer to, United States v. Avco 
Corporation, D.J. Ref. #90-11-3-06903.
    The Decree may be examined at the office of the U.S. Attorney, 
Federal Building, 228 Walnut Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; at U.S. 
EPA Region 3, Office of Regional Counsel, 1650 Arch Street, 
Philadelphia, PA. A copy of the Decree may be obtained by mail from the 
Consent Decree Library, U.S. Department of Justice, P.O. Box 7611, 
Washington, DC 20044. In requesting a copy, please enclose a check in 
the amount of $44.75 for the Decree (25 cents per page reproduction 
cost) payable to the Consent Decree Library.

Walker B. Smith,
Deputy Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and 
Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 01-3275 Filed 2-7-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002   I, Francis L. Simola, Chairman, President and CEO of PowerCold Corporation (the Company) do hereby 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.  This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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: September 7, 2006  /s/ Francis L. Simola Francis L. Simola Chairman, President and CEO
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 22, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-50452 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus VICENTE ROCHA-HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:03-CR-646-ALL-HLH

-------------------- Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Vicente Rocha-Hernandez appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry into the United States following deportation. Rocha-Hernandez was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 57 months to be followed by three years of non-reporting supervised release. Rocha-Hernandez argues for the first time on appeal that in light of United States v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), the district court plainly erred in sentencing him under a mandatoryNo. 04-50452 -2- guideline system based on facts that were not admitted by Rocha or found by a jury. He contends that the district court’s comments at sentencing indicate that it would have imposed a different sentence if it had sentenced him under an advisory guideline scheme. Rocha’s claim that the district court plainly erred by enhancing his sentence based on facts not determined by a jury and which he did not admit is unavailing because he failed to show that “the sentencing judge--sentencing under an advisory scheme rather then a mandatory one--would have reached a significantly different result.” See United States v. Mares , 402 F.3d 511, 520-522 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed (Mar. 31, 2005) (No. 04-9517). His argument that the district court’s application of the guidelines as mandatory was error also fails because he did not show that the district court would have imposed a different sentence had the guidelines been advisory only. See United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo , 407 F.3d 728, 732-34 (5th Cir. 2005). Rocha concedes that the issue whether his sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) & (b)(2) was rendered unconstitutional by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and subsequent Supreme Court precedent is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), and he raises it solely to preserve it for further review by the Supreme Court. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres

. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. atNo. 04-50452 -3- 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). We therefore must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotations and citation omitted).

AFFIRMED.
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 of Murray United Development Corp. on
        Form
        10-QSB for the period ending January 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities
        and
        Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Dwight Foster, Chief Executive
        Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
        pursuant to §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 results of operations of the Company.
 
 Date: March
                23, 2007
              By:
              /s/ Dwight
                FosterDWIGHT
                FOSTERTitle:
                Chief Executive Officer
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 10-40981 Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. PEDRO PEREZ-SERRANO, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:09-CR-1594-1
Before BENAVIDES, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Pedro Perez-Serrano has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders

v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Perez-Serrano has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with
c o u n s el’ s a s s e s s m e nt that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Octob er 21 , 20 11 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 10-40981 Document: 00511640227 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/21/2011No. 10-40981

counsel is excused from further responsibilities he r e i n, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See5 T H C I R
. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 10-40981 Document: 00511640227 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/21/2011
#### Elijah SCHKEIBAN, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James CAMERON, an individual; Lightstorm Entertainment, Inc., a California corporation; Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, a Delaware corporation; Dune Entertainment, LP, a Delaware limited partnership, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 12-56964.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 17, 2013.*

Filed April 1, 2014.

Elijah Schkeiban, Glendale, CA, pro se.

Elaine K. Kim, Robert H. Rotstein, Mitchell Silberberg *&*Knupp, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, J. Matthew Williams, Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: CLIFTON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiff Elijah Schkeiban appeals the district court’s dismissal of his complaint alleging that James Cameron’s movie *Avatar*infringed the copyright of his book and screenplay *Bats and Butterflies.*We re*617view a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) de novo, *Hebbe v. Pliler,*627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir.2010), and affirm.

The district court correctly ruled that *Avatar*and *Bats and Butterflies*are not “substantially similar in their protected elements.” *Cavalier v. Random House, Inc.,*297 F.3d 815, 822 (9th Cir.2002). There are “few real similarities” between the plot, themes, dialogue, mood, setting, pace, characters, and sequence of events in *Avatar*and Schkeiban’s work. *Funky Films, Inc. v. Time Warner Entm’t Co., L.P.,*462 F.3d 1072, 1078 (9th Cir.2006). Any similarities consist of unprotectable “general plot ideas” or *scenes a faire*flowing naturally from these ideas. *Berkic v. Crichton,*761 F.2d 1289, 1293 (9th Cir.1985).

Because we affirm the district court’s ruling that the works are not substantially similar, we do not need to reach the court’s alternative ground for dismissal that Schkeiban did not adequately allege that the defendants had access to his work. *See Benay v. Warner Bros. Entm’t, Inc.,*607 F.3d 620, 625 (9th Cir.2010) (holding that the plaintiffs had not shown sufficient similarity to prevail even if the defendants had access to their work).

The defendants’ motion to submit commercially available copies of *Avatar*on DVD, filed on May 8, 2013, is granted.

Schkeiban’s motion to submit annotated copies of *Avatar*on DVD, filed on November 12, 2013, is denied. Schkeiban’s motion to submit highlighted copies of the book *Bats and Butterflies,*filed on December 9, 2013, is also denied. However, our disposition of the appeal would not be affected even if we were to grant these motions.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 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 Parlux Fragrances, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 1 for the period ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Neil J. Katz, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Chapter 63 of Title 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 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.







|              |     |                                     
|------------- | --- | ------------------------------------
|July 30, 2007 | By: | /s/ NEILJ. KATZ                     
|              |     | Neil J. Katz                        
|              |     | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
|              |     |
CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

*June 18, 2014*

[Cite as *06118/2014 Case Announcements,*2014-Ohio-2626.]

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

2014-0424.

#### In re Application of Baudendistel.

This matter is pending before the court upon the report of the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness. On May 13, 2014, applicant, Thomas Donald Baudendistel, filed with this court a motion to seal the record.

Upon consideration thereof, it is ordered by the court that the motion is denied.

O’Donnell and O’Neill, JJ.,

dissent and would grant the motion as to the records referencing the Ohio Lawyers Assistance Program.
Exhibit 32.2



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 Quarterly Report of Interlink Electronics, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paul D. Meyer, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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/    PAUL D. MEYER                 
|Paul D. Meyer Chief Financial Officer
|                                     
|July 22, 2004
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION 

601 NEW JERSEY AVENUE, NW
 

SUITE 9500
 

WASHINGTON, DC 20001
 

February 3, 2011 

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Thursday, February 24, 2011 

PLACE:	 The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, 9th Floor, 601 New Jersey 

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 

STATUS: Open 

MATTERS TO BE 

CONSIDERED:	 The Commission will consider and act upon the following in open 

session: Secretary of Labor v. North American Drillers, Inc., Docket 

Nos. LAKE 2008-2-R et al. (Issues include whether the judge erred 

in failing to grant the operator’s request for declaratory relief in a case 

where the Secretary had vacated the citation in question.) 

Any person attending this meeting who requires special accessibility 

features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters, must 

inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Subject to 29 

C.F.R. § 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d). 

CONTACT PERSON 

FOR MORE INFO: Jean Ellen (202) 434-9950 / (202) 708-9300 for TDD Relay / 

1-800-877-8339 for toll free.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED NOVEMBER 6, 2014

NO. 03-14-00426-CV

Michael J. DeLitta; Axiom Medical Consulting, LLC; Axiom Professionals, LLC;

Axiom Properties, LLC; and DelCom Properties, LLC, Appellants

v.

Nancy Schaefer, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 201ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, PEMBERTON, AND FIELD

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE FIELD

This is an appeal from the interlocutory order signed by the trial court on June 19, 2014. Having 

reviewed the record, it appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. Therefore, the 

Court dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction. The appellants shall pay all costs relating to 

this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [Order No. 1197]

Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:

Whereas, the Savannah Airport Commission, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 104, submitted an application to the Board for authority to expand FTZ 104-Site 2 at the Garden city/Ocean Terminals and Site 4 at the SPA Industrial Park, and for authority to include two new sites at the Savannah International Trade and Convention Center (Site 5) and Mulberry Grove (Site 6) in Savannah, Georgia, within the Savannah Customs port of entry (FTZ Docket 47-2000; filed 8/7/00; amended 4/21/01);

                    Whereas, notice inviting public comment was given in the                     **Federal Register**                     (65 FR 50178, 8/17/00; 66 FR 21739, 5/1/01) and the application, as amended, has been processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations; and,                

Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and Board's regulations are satisfied, and that the proposal, as amended, is in the public interest;

Now, Therefore, the Board hereby orders:

The application, as amended, to expand FTZ 104 is approved, subject to the Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.28, and further subject to the standard 2,000-acre activation limit for the overall zone project.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 18th day of December 2001.

Faryar Shirzad,

Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.

Dennis Puccinelli,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-31984 Filed 12-27-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         186,005
<SECURITIES>                                   210,921
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,835,011
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  3,341,095
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,849,951
<PP&E>                                       3,887,302
<DEPRECIATION>                                  76,411
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,813,664
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,262,110
<BONDS>                                      1,900,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        82,553
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,528,634
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,813,664
<SALES>                                      6,311,490
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,311,490
<CGS>                                        2,836,336
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,836,336
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,248,786
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (56,381)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                605,348
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (194,585)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            410,763
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   410,763
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .18
        

</TABLE>